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

Hi Christer,

Thank you very much for the comments.

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

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.

Thank you
Laura

>
> 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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud
>
>