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

Sorry for the duplication. I had an email problem when sending the email
below and it seems to have made it to the list twice.

Gonzalo

On 11/01/2013 1:50 PM, 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 "-".
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> 
> 