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

Hi Laura,

>Please find below the text changes according to your comments Q4-1_1  and Q4-2_1.  Is the text OK for you?

I don't find any text :)

> I am not sure what we should do concerning the comment QG_1.  IMO, usually RFCs do not mention all possible scenarios or use cases which may occur. The content of an Alert-Info
> applies just to the message, there is no text saying in any way that the content of the Alert-Info applies to a dialog or transaction.
> Additionaly, if we add text and mention these use cases, I think people will ask for concrete examples, then for message flows and so on, so that finishing the draft will take another year...
> There is also nothing we can do here for a UA receiving different Alert-Info in two non-100 provisional reasponses, we have no rules on how the UA has to handle them, this is implementation dependent anyway.
> So, my personal opinion is to leave this out.

I think a simple note, saying that depending on the use-case/service, subsequent non-100 provisional responses might contain different values. Otherwise I am pretty sure that people, sooner or later, will argue whether it is allowed or not...

Regards,

Christer

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

_______________________________________________
salud mailing list
salud@ietf.org<mailto:salud@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud