Re: [MEDIACTRL] WGLC: Call Flows

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

On 12/3/12 8:45 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
> We are almost finished! One last document to go, the Media Control Channel Framework (CFW) Call Flow Examples.  You can pickup a copy here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mediactrl-call-flows
>
> Please review CLOSELY, as no matter how many times we tell implementors to read the base specifications and that this document is simply a non-normtive example,  implementors will blindly copy from this document and not read the base documents. It MUST be as accurate as possible.
>
> Because of the importance of getting this right, the Work Group Last Call will run until 21 December 2012.
Yes, please. If you are going to dive deep on any one particular aspect 
of this review, please let the list know so
we spread the effort around. There's a _lot_ to review here.

Lorenzo - I really appreciate that the SIP was generated by real 
implementations - did you set things up where they were actually using 
example.com and example.net or did you edit the captured messages to say 
that after the fact?

One question about some of the CFW examples. We have this section:

2.  Conventions

    Note that due to RFC formatting conventions, this document often
    splits SIP/SDP and CFW across lines whose content would exceed 72
    characters.  A backslash character marks where this line folding has
    taken place.  This backslash and its trailing CRLF and whitespace
    would not appear in the actual protocol contents.  Besides, also note
    that the indentation of the XML content is only provided for
    readability: actual messages will follow strict XML syntax, which
    allows for, but does not require, indentation.  Due to the same 72
    characters limitation, this document also sometimes splits the
    content of XML elements across lines: please beware that, when this
    happens, no whitespace is actually meant to be neither at the
    beginning nor at the end of the element content.

Should it go on to say that the Content-Lengths in the examples were
calculated _before_ formatting the example for publication in the RFC?
I can't, for example, make the content-length in this example make sense:

D1. AS <- MS (CFW CONTROL event, dtmfnotify)
--------------------------------------------
    CFW 361840da0581 CONTROL
    Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
    Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
    Content-Length: 179

    <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
       <event dialogid="3e936e0">
          <dtmfnotify matchmode="control" dtmf="6"
                      timestamp="2008-12-16T12:58:36Z"/>
       </event>
    </mscivr>

Even if I rip out _all_ the whitespace outside of the tags and assume
a single LF instead of a CRLF, I get 180?

0000000   <   m   s   c   i   v   r       v   e   r   s   i   o n   =
0000010   "   1   .   0   "       x   m   l   n   s   =   "   u r   n
0000020   :   i   e   t   f   :   p   a   r   a   m   s   :   x m   l
0000030   :   n   s   :   m   s   c   -   i   v   r   "   > <   e   v
0000040   e   n   t       d   i   a   l   o   g   i   d   =   " 3   e
0000050   9   3   6   e   0   "   >   <   d   t   m   f   n o   t   i
0000060   f   y       m   a   t   c   h   m   o   d   e   =   " c   o
0000070   n   t   r   o   l   "       d   t   m   f   =   "   6 "
0000080   t   i   m   e   s   t   a   m   p   =   "   2   0   0 8   -
0000090   1   2   -   1   6   T   1   2   :   5   8   :   3   6 Z   "
00000a0   /   >   <   /   e   v   e   n   t   >   < /   m   s   c   i
00000b0   v   r   >  \n

RjS



>
> _______________________________________________
> MEDIACTRL mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
> Supplemental Web Site:
> http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl