Re: [salud] Christer's review of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-09

Laura Liess <laura.liess.dt@googlemail.com> Thu, 23 January 2014 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <laura.liess.dt@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED3FD1A0114 for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 06:23:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YAHzbrR3yEyL for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 06:23:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x22a.google.com (mail-la0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3A901A00FC for <salud@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 06:23:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id hr13so1527618lab.1 for <salud@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 06:23:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=wex7hwY3zZisLeexh2Ygy3K/npO1EvzGSOZrmayk6sc=; b=qMckpYbkLuOoBuSX4zz1XRk8v00U3lIo1KBIqlV7v/Z8s7XLCjGOYTnTxBeFXbHA0x l+qFRPXp2pxpB0YXzQtTcUHCPkcb+YyhvXpMF+vT5ZcimXvD5mzQPWuxBo1yuZBJmlZB E/MaVIZZi0/Y01soGQKFEdenum+UUBNKootlMNuAtybbDJnSR4SrCLqOCae4ZKK/vx0w p/rKGohsiSWKiXB13nVY4VAS+LpMCN5hDQ+OG0U9PG0FnCm9xoEJb10jVSe4HoNJznjl I7EG2ra4AK/lOlux9E3coCqtudUmH/Thov2NotD32QNAf6GS3DgyWWQh1yPE//2z5h0g tWbQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.138.233 with SMTP id qt9mr5115568lbb.34.1390486985345; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 06:23:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.169.129 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 06:23:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C5EF0E7@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C5EF0E7@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:23:05 +0100
Message-ID: <CACWXZj36rFCAuP7kTRNN0y5jNzYb7P=SSsDvswJrG6WvkbWq4A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Laura Liess <laura.liess.dt@googlemail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Dale Worley <dworley@avaya.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01229710d38f8704f0a3fa70
Cc: "salud@ietf.org" <salud@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [salud] Christer's review of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-09
X-BeenThere: salud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Sip ALerting for User Devices working group discussion list <salud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud/>
List-Post: <mailto:salud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:23:09 -0000

Hi,

Thank you for the comments.
Please find inline the
changes I intend to do in version -11   based on your comments and the
corresponding discussion and also my personal opinion. Please let me know
if I mised something or if for some reason you  don't agree.

>
>
>
>
> Q1:
>
> -----
>
>
>
> Remove the references from the Abstract.
>

[LL] Done in  version-10.

>
>
> Q2:
>
> -----
>
>
>
> There are a number of editorial inconsistences that needs to be fixed.
>
>
>
> E.g. “Alert-Info header field” vs “SIP Alert-Info header field” vs
> “Alert-Info”
>

[LL]  OK. Change  “SIP Alert-Info header field” and “Alert-Info” to
“Alert-Info header field”


>
>
> E.g. “180 (Ringing)” vs “180 Ringing”
>
[LL] OK. Change  “180 Ringing” to “180 (Ringing)”

>
>
> Etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> Q3:
>
> -----
>
>
>
> As the draft updates RFC 3261, I would like to have a section named
> “Update to RFC 3261”. Now there are only a few places in the introduction
> talking about the update.
>

[LL]  See the a separate discussion on this issue.



>
>
>
> Q4:
>
> -----
>
>
>
> I am not sure the text in section 1.2 belongs to the Introduction. It is
> basically the “Update to RFC 3261” section I mentioned in Q3.
>
>
>
[LL] OK. Separate main section.

>
>
> Q5:
>
> -----
>
>
>
> I am not sure the text in section 1.3 belongs to the Introduction. We
> normally have a separate section.
>
>
[LL] OK. Separate main section.

>
>
>
>
> Q6:
>
> -----
>
>
>
> Section 1.1 says:
>
>
>
> “In [RFC3261] this is done by including a URI in the Alert-Info header
> field, that specifies the tone.”
>
>
>
> Should the text say that the header field includes a REFERENCE to a tone?
> Later in the paragraph, you DO talk about the referenced tone.
>
>
>
[LL] Would you agree with the text   “In [RFC3261] this is done by
including a URI in the Alert-Info header field, that specifies a Reference
to the tone.”  ?


>
> Q7:
>
> ----
>
>
>
> Section 1.1 says:
>
>
>
> “The URI is most commonly the HTTP URL to the audio file.”
>
>
>
> s/”the audio file”/”an audio file”
>

[LL] Agree.

>
>
>
>
> Q8:
>
> -----
>
>
>
> Section 1.1. says:
>
>
>
> “It is not possible to provide semantic indications or names for rendering
> characteristics
>
>                 that signals the intent and allows the recipient UA to
> decide how to render the received
>
> information in an appropriate way.”
>
>
>
> The sentence is very confusing. Why not simply say something like:
>
>
>
>                 “It is not possible to define semantics associated with a
> given tone.”
>
>

[LL] OK. I will replace the text with the text provided by Paul in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud/current/msg00456.html.


>
>
>
> Q9:
>
> -----
>
>
>
> Section 4 defines the ABNF for the URN, but the is no text on how to “map”
> it into the Alert-Info header field ABNF:
>
>
>
> For example, I assume that the URN is encoded using the opaque-part format
> of the absoluteURI, and that the sceme value is “urn”. I think it would be
> good to indicate that.
>


[LL]  My understanding is that we don't have consensus that  the current
text must be changed. I would leave the text as it is.


Thank you
Laura

>
>



>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> salud mailing list
> salud@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud
>
>