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

[Laura Liess <[e-mail]>]

Christer, Dale,

I put my current understanding of the discussion outcome into the text
modifications below. Please look at it and let me know your opinion.

- Issue 4.1.  New text for Section 4.1 :
"This specification changes the usage of the Alert-Info header field
defined in [RFC3261] by additionally allowing its use in any non-100
provisional response to INVITE."

- Issue 4.2 :
     - New text for Section "Abstract", second paragraph:
"This document normatively updates RFC 3261, which defines the Session
Initiation
Protocol (SIP): It changes the usage of the Alert-Info header field defined
in RFC 3261 by additionally allowing its use in any non-100 provisional
response to INVITE (except the 100 response).This document also permits
proxies to add or remove an Alert-Info  header field, and to add or remove
Alert-Info header field values."

     - It is not clear to me if we completly drop Section 4.2 or if we keep
it with the new text:
"A SIP proxy MAY add or remove an Alert-Info header field, and MAY add or
remove Alert-Info header field values, in a SIP request or a non-100
provisional response."

       - Section  14 "Proxy Behaviour". First paragraph is replaced by:

"A SIP proxy MAY add or remove an Alert-Info header field, and MAY add or
remove Alert-Info header field values, in a SIP request or a  non-100
provisional response when it needs to modify the  information about the
call or about the provided services."





-  Issue "General":  New text at the end of Section 13 "User Agent
Behaviour"

"Subsequent provisional responses, even within the same dialog, may    contain
different Alert-Info header field values.  The Alert-Info header    field
values received within different Provisional responses are treated
independently.  If subsequent provisional responses containing  different
Alert-Info header field values were received within the same dialog, the
User Agent should render at anytime the last received Alert-Info header
field value. The handling of provisional responses containing  different
Alert-Info header field values which were not received within the same
dialog is left as an implementation issue."

Thank you
Laura


2014-09-13 10:28 GMT+02:00 Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]
>:

> Hi,
>
> >> That's my point: we could say that a proxy can remove the Alert-Info
> >> header field - without saying anything about updating 3261 :)
> >
> > It seems to me that if we're going to have a section which describes the
> normative changes to 3261, > it should list every normative change we make
> to 3261, even if it isn't the sort of change that has in > the past been
> done by declaring a textual amendment to 3261.
>
> Correct.
>
> So, my suggestion is still that we don't say anything about updating 3261.
> We simply say that a proxy can remove the Alert-Info header field/header
> field values, and that's it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>