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

Keith,

Christer proposed the folowing text:
   " When present in an INVITE request, the Alert-Info header field
   specifies an alternative ring tone to the UAS.  When present in a
non-100 provisional
   response, the Alert-Info header field specifies an alternative ringback
tone to
   the UAC.  A typical usage is for a proxy to insert this header field to
provide a
   distinctive ring feature."

I am fine with it but it seems to me that it does not meet your
requirements. Would you like some modification to it and if yes could you
make a proposal how to modify it?

Thank you
Laura

2014/1/21 DRAGE, Keith (Keith) <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>

>  The agreement we made is that we should not use the tables, but also
> that the main text should accurately specify the requirements for which
> methods are allowed to include header fields or not, preferably in a
> generic way that accommodates new methods. So text that states "all
> requests", "all requests initiating a new dialog" and so on.
>
> Even on an update, it may be preferable to specify it this way.
>
> regards
>
> Keith
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* salud [mailto:salud-bounces@ietf.org] * On Behalf Of *Christer
> Holmberg
> *Sent:* 21 January 2014 11:29
> *To:* laura.liess.dt@googlemail.com
> *Cc:* salud@ietf.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [salud] Christer's review of
> draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-09
>
>   Hi Laura,
>
>  SIPCORE some time ago decided not to use/maintain the header field
> tables anymore, so that is why I didn't include it in my change suggestion.
>
>  But, if you want to also change the table, I won’t object 😊
>
>  Regards,
>
>  Christer
>
>  Sent from Windows Mail
>
>   *From:* laura.liess.dt@googlemail.com
> *Sent:* ‎Tuesday‎, ‎January‎ ‎21‎, ‎2014 ‎12‎:‎54‎ ‎PM
> *To:* Hans-Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
> *Cc:* Dale R. Worley <worley@ariadne.com>, salud@ietf.org
>
>   Christer, Dale,
>
> IMO, the  draft updates the RFC 3261 because it allows the usage of the
> Alert-Info header field in all provisional responses 1xx except the 100
> response. This is described in the first two paragraphs of Section 1.2.
> This paragraphs are OK in this section.
> The third  paragraph is usefull (it explains what the draft does) but, as
> Christer remarked,  it does not describe the update of the RFC3261 and so
> it does not belong to this section.  I would move this paragraph at the end
> of Section 1.1. What do you think?
>
>  Concerning the structure if the Section 1.2,   I will put the text from
> section 1.2 into a new main Section 2 and structure it as Christer proposes
> in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud/current/msg00454.html.
> But  I think there are two places where we should update the 3261 text:
>  1) Section 20.4 as proposed by Christer and
>
>  2) Table 2: Summary of header fields, A--O on page 161, the " 180" in
> the row
>
>   Alert-Info             180     ar    -   -   -   o   -   -
>
>     should be changed in "1xx (excepting 100)"
>
>  so we probably need two subsections "New text repalcing the
> text.........of RFC 3261" .
> Opinions?
>
>  Thank you
>  Laura
>
>
>
> 2014/1/20 Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> >> BTW, the following sentence is unclear to me:
>> >>
>> >>    "In practice, this specification extends Alert-Info in that it will
>> >>    cause the use of a new class of URIs and the use of multiple URIs."
>> >>
>> >> What does it mean?
>> >
>> > The idea is that, while 3261 syntactically and semantically *allows*
>> non-HTTP URIs in Alert-Info, nobody ever used non-HTTP URIs in Alert-Info,
>> and nobody implemented an interpretation of those URIs.
>> > Thus, even though we are not changing what is officially permitted,
>> implementers will have to change their code because the new *practice* will
>> be an extension of the old practice.  (And both the new practice and the
>> old practice are a small subset of what is permitted by 3261.)
>>
>>  Well, then you should use different wording. Because, the draft does not
>> extend Alert-Info, it simply describes the usage of a new URN in the header
>> field.
>>
>>
>> >>>> Q9:
>> >>>> -----
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Section 4 defines the ABNF for the URN, but [there] 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 scheme value is "urn". I
>> >>>> think it would be good to indicate that.
>> >>>
>> >>> Actually, we're depending on the fact (unstated in RFC 3261) that
>> >>> any "absolute" URI (per RFC 3986) is allowed as a header field value
>> >>> in Alert-Info, and that the URNs we are defining conform to the
>> >>> absolute URI syntax.  If the syntax for <absoluteURI> in RFC 3261
>> >>> didn't allow all absolute URIs, we'd have to amend RFC 3261.
>> >>
>> >> There are two different "structures" for absolute URI, and the URNs
>> >> only fit into the opaque-part structure.
>> >>
>> >> In addition, as the URI requires a scheme value, I think we should
>> >> explicitly say what it is.
>> >
>> > I guess my point is that the 3261 ABNF already allows all alert URNs to
>> appear in Alert-Info, and there is no need to specify exactly how alert
>> URNs are compatible with the 3261 ABNF.  Anyone who cares exactly how this
>> draft is directly compatible with the ABNF can see that by looking at the
>> ABNF.
>> >
>> > Have there been other situations where this sort of syntax explication
>> has been provided?
>>
>>  I don't know - I am just commenting on how I think the draft could from
>> my perspective be improved :)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>  _______________________________________________
>> salud mailing list
>> salud@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud
>>
>
>