Re: [MMUSIC] AD review: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-16

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Miguel Angel,

thanks for your quick response. I am OK with all your proposals below.
When you implement the changes, please post a new revision of the draft.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

On 14/01/2013 11:11 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
> Hi Gonzalo:
> 
> Here are some inline comments. I am about to post version -17 addressing
> your comments:
> 
> 
> On 11/01/2013 12:50, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just got a publication request for the following draft:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-16
>>
>> Please, find below my AD review.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>>
>> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-16:
>>
>> Page 10: remove the indentation of the following paragraph. Indented
>> paragraphs are typically used to provide clarifications while this one
>> contains normative language:
>>
>>        Note that <addrtype> and/or <connection-address> MUST NOT be
>>        omitted when unknown since this would violate basic syntax of SDP
>>        [RFC4566].  In such cases, they MUST be set to a "-".
> 
> Ok.
> 
>>
>> Section 5.2.3.1 provides a "format" for the cs-correlation attribute.
>> However, its ABNF formal syntax is in Section 5.7. So, why does Section
>> 5.2.3.1 also contain a syntax for the attribute... and what type of
>> syntax is that?
> 
> The sort-of-syntax in Section 5.2.3.1 is simply an introduction to the
> three types of correlation mechanisms that can be used. So, the syntax
> is the way to introduce to Sections 5.2.3.2, 5.2.3.3, and 5.2.3.4.
> 
> But I understand your point. I suggest removing the syntax from there
> and including a pointer to Section 5.7, where the formal syntax is
> described.
> 
>>
>> Page 14: the text says:
>>
>>        To mitigate this problem implementations
>>        should consider only some of the rightmost digits from the E.164
>>
>> Can we provide a more concrete advice (or at least some discussion) on
>> the number of digits to consider?
> 
> This is a hard problem even to provide guidance, because the PSTN E.164
> numbers have a variable length. So, if you want to do it right, you
> should become aware of the number plan in the network you are camping.
> But this is outside the scope of the specification.
> 
> We can add a note to refer to ITU-T E.164 specification in order for
> implementations to consider what the right number of digits is.
> 
>>
>> Page 15: we define how to encode a binary value in hexadecimal format
>> and represent it as a two-digit ASCII value. Can we point to an existing
>> specification that defines how to do that instead of specifying it
>> inline?
>>
> 
> Yeap, and I found that there is an RFC specifying it (there is always an
> RFC specifying what you want :-). It is RFC 4648 and we are referring to
> the base16 (or "hex") encoding. We will change the text accordingly.
> 
> 
>> Page 17: the text says:
>>
>>        Implementations are advised to select a number of DTMF digits that
>>        provide enough assurance that the call is related, but on the
>>        other hand do not prolong the bearer setup time unnecessarily.
>>
>> Can we provide a more concrete recommendation?
> 
> Ok, I guess we are talking of 5 to 10 digits.
> 
>>
>> Page 17: Section 5.2.3.4 specifies what to do when the correlation
>> fails. However, that is described in general in Section 5.3.3. Why don't
>> we move all the statements about how to decide whether the sessions are
>> correlated to Section 5.3.3? Now, the following statement contradicts
>> what Section 5.3.3 says, for example:
>>
>>     the passive side
>>     SHOULD treat the circuit-switched bearer as not correlated to the
>>     ongoing session.
> 
> ok.
> 
>>
>> The indented text right after the statement above talks about
>> suppressing alerting. Such a supression is applicable to any session,
>> not only those that are correlated using DTMF tones. So, we could also
>> move that discussion to Section 5.3.3.
> 
> ok too.
> 
>>
>> Section 5.5: rephrase the following sentence (possibly splitting it into
>> more than one sentence) so that it is clearer:
>>
>>        Note that this may result in the recipient of the initial Offer in
>>        rejecting the Offer if the recipient of the Offer is not aware of
>>        its own E.164 number, and thus concluding that it will not be
>>        possible to establish a circuit-switched bearer since neither
>>        party is aware of their E.164 number.
> 
> Done
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
>