[salud] Review comments on draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-13

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I have reviewed the latest version of the alert-urn draft. In general it looks ok, but I have a few comments (of which one is pure editorial) that I request the authors to address.

General:
-----------

<QG_1>

As it is now allowed to use the Alert-Info header field in any non-100 provisional response, I assume the value could actually change from one
response to another.

Eventhough RFC3261 does not explicitly forbid it, perhaps it would be good to explicitly mention that in this draft, because I assume there could be use cases where
e.g. one value is received in a 181, and another value in a subsequent 180.

</QG_1>


Section 4.1:
---------------

<Q4-1_1>

                This is pure editorial, but for alignment purpose I suggest to change "in all provisional responses..." to "in any non-100 provisional response..."

</Q4-1_1>


Section 4.2:
---------------

<Q4-2_1>

This section is below the "Updates to RFC 3261" section, but it is unclear exactly what is updated.

The first paragraph of section 20.4/RFC 3261 already says that a proxy can insert a A-I header. If you want to explicitly say
that a proxy can also modify an existing header, shouldn't that be text that you add to e.g. the same paragraph?


</Q4-2_1>


Regards,

Christer