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

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Fri, 12 September 2014 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@ariadne.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 80BBD1A0047 for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1] autolearn=ham
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 KSzMjEZ_4DXj for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 884D91A000F for <salud@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.43]) by resqmta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id qJo21o0010vyq2s01KjnVK; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:43:47 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([24.34.72.61]) by omta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id qKjn1o00C1KKtkw3RKjnpz; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:43:47 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s8CJhk9s013343; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:43:46 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id s8CJhjoS013342; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:43:45 -0400
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:43:45 -0400
Message-Id: <201409121943.s8CJhjoS013342@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
In-reply-to: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D443180@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> (christer.holmberg@ericsson.com)
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D439271@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CACWXZj0e8pdneJq_d+Cug86R8J+SHdwEyXFaxFs19hVWMNXLpA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D4411D8@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CACWXZj2aKOVuMkF5yZS5-LeZDXq=GL3-u5SYW0BSRq2DWWfV_A@mail.gmail.com> <201409101935.s8AJZn21031578@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D443180@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1410551027; bh=Tfn5jlD8Wof+1Tpq+QtwpNaIxoDdJiZRLZQLydaY0Us=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Date:Message-Id:From:To: Subject; b=bj7GOzigVwhmiAxfWkBvdpfwXJtUN1UMTI++5q1aUpVCZdpAafyPQFm/AjUQYRA6B 5nUuW1UPK62DBjXKAi9HjmxInx8iHCEG4QK1gavQI7r2Wk2FTnVfMc0yr03vwGrA37 +uFTYyDX5nsRPHOfeCpPl/qmGgmCDPFhXiulgo0RL/a21/YQTNHxLjpm2su1+Im9+6 A6g+DISoauhpT3ur3brJXi/5PMFIex0XhPZzVW8JI1yHibjJN7fCKWDqMLMEblGKVN TDGpi7YwbgtHXouTgSBN+hx5JuN8G2MBFf+jlqTiTz2i3NqfaZcRa53gkRDPWUhUXx pYAd/Pzq3sMPw==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/salud/r_M6z-RsD2dPBAVKQxfB7hjdcJY
Cc: salud@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [salud] Review comments on draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-13
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: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:43:49 -0000

> From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>;

> 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.

Dale