Re: [sip-http-events] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe-03

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 01 December 2009 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: sip-http-events@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip-http-events@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D2F28C163 for <sip-http-events@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 13:36:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.444, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XWmLkZ6aRNyZ for <sip-http-events@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 13:36:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1673828C16E for <sip-http-events@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 13:36:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dn3-211.estacado.net (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nB1LaIGJ095763 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 1 Dec 2009 15:36:19 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <4B158C51.7040705@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:36:17 -0600
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091121 Thunderbird/3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com>
References: <4B0D9DC3.8030202@nostrum.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA43A2E6C9@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4B13FE1B.3000804@nostrum.com> <4B141916.3070904@nostrum.com> <839A9D89-DD1C-470F-8C5C-993069D5C1DC@ntt-at.com>
In-Reply-To: <839A9D89-DD1C-470F-8C5C-993069D5C1DC@ntt-at.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: SIP HTTP Subscription Package <sip-http-events@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sip-http-events] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe-03
X-BeenThere: sip-http-events@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP HTTP Events <sip-http-events.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-http-events>, <mailto:sip-http-events-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-http-events>
List-Post: <mailto:sip-http-events@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-http-events-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-http-events>, <mailto:sip-http-events-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:36:30 -0000

Thanks. These will be fixed in the -05.

/a

On 12/1/09 3:29 AM, Shida Schubert wrote:
> Adam,
>
>   Just reviewed the 04 version of the draft.
>
>   Beside the few nits indicated below, the draft looked solid. Thanks for working on this.
>
>   Section 3.1/Last sentence of last paragraph :  "section Section 4"
>   Section 4.5.1/Last Paragraph :  "contain a the same"
>
>   Regards
>    Shida
>
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 4:12 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
>
>    
>> I've produced a new version of the document incorporating these changes. See the diff here:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe-04.txt
>>
>> /a
>>
>> On 11/30/09 11:17 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
>>      
>>> John:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the review. Responses inline.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/30/09 9:42 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
>>>        
>>>> Adam,
>>>>
>>>> I reviewed this again and it looks almost ready to go. Just a few comments:
>>>>
>>>> - In Abstract: "This document further proposes that the HTTP work necessary to make
>>>>     such a mechanism work be extensible to support protocols other than
>>>>     SIP for monitoring HTTP resources."
>>>> The only further mention of this seems to be in section 3 "Handling for
>>>>     other URI schemes is out of scope for the current document, although
>>>>     we expect future specifications to define procedures for monitoring
>>>>     via other protocols."
>>>> To justify the wording in Abstract I would expect more than this. I would propose deletion of the words in Abstract.
>>>>          
>>> I've deleted them. I had originally intended to say more on this topic, and wanted to make sure that this aspect of the "monitor" link association was as externally visible as possible. But I agree that it doesn't make much sense, given the current content of the document.
>>>
>>>        
>>>> - In section 1: "Such subscriptions do not carry the content associated with
>>>>     the resource -- the HTTP protocol is still used to transfer the
>>>>     contents of HTTP resources."
>>>> With the addition of the body= parameter, this isn't always true.
>>>>          
>>> I propose changing this to:
>>>
>>>       Such subscriptions do not necessarily carry the content
>>>       associated with the resource.  In the cases that the content
>>>       is not conveyed, the HTTP protocol is still used to transfer
>>>       the contents of HTTP resources.
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>>> - In section 4..2: "this parameter
>>>>     indicates to the server that the client wishes to receive a message-
>>>>     body component in the message/http bodies sent in NOTIFY messages."
>>>>
>>>> The terminology used here ("message body component", "bodies") seems to be inconsistent with terminology used in SIP in general and RFC 5621 in particular, i.e., a "message body" (singular) and "body parts". In fact this inconsistency in terminology occurs in other sections, which I haven't pulled out specifically. In the particular case of the sentence above, shouldn't it say something like "wishes to receive message/http body part(s) in NOTIFY messages"?
>>>>          
>>> If your objection is the use of "message bodies" instead of "body parts," then I think you're conflating two things. "Body parts" is exclusively a MIME multipart term, not a SIP term. In the sip-http-subscribe document, we're not talking about multiple MIME body parts on a single NOTIFY message (which would be "body parts"). We're talking about multiple NOTIFY messages, and the respective single message body associated with each of them. It's a one-to-one relationship, without the use of MIME multipart mechanisms.
>>>
>>> The rest of the prose you quote is slightly awkward because this is a rather confusing concept that I'm having a hard time putting into prose. We're talking about two different kinds of messages that use the same terminology.
>>>
>>> There is a SIP message. It contains a message body.
>>> The SIP message body is an HTTP message. The HTTP message also contains a message-body.
>>>
>>> The parameter is trying to talk about the HTTP body part, not the SIP body part.
>>>
>>> I've tried to clean this section up; does this sound right to you?
>>>
>>>             If present and set to "true" in a SUBSCRIBE request,
>>>             this parameter indicates to the server that the client
>>>             wishes to receive a message-body component in the
>>>             message/http message bodies sent in NOTIFY messages.
>>>
>>>             If a server receives a SUBSCRIBE message with a "Event"
>>>             header field "body" parameter set to "true", it MAY
>>>             choose to include a message-body component in the
>>>             message/http message bodies that it sends in NOTIFY
>>>             messages.  Alternatively, it MAY decline to send such
>>>             message-bodies, even when this parameter is present,
>>>             based on local policy.  In particular, it would be quite
>>>             reasonable for servers to have a policy of not including
>>>             HTTP message-bodies larger than a relatively small
>>>             number of bytes.
>>>
>>> (I also made a sweep of the use of "body" and "bodies" elsewhere in the document to make sure they are consistent).
>>>
>>>        
>>>> - In section 4.7 "In the case that the NOTIFIER has insufficient information to return
>>>>     any useful information about the underlying HTTP resource, it may
>>>>     return a body that is zero bytes long."
>>>> What motivated this? Would termination of the subscription be an alternative possibility?
>>>>          
>>> This would generally be a temporary condition. Imagine that the notifier has to perform an asynchronous operation -- such as a back-end subscription -- to obtain the information about the HTTP resource.
>>>
>>>        
>>>> Some nits...
>>>>          
>>> Thanks; I've fixed these.
>>>
>>> /a
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sip-http-events mailing list
>>> sip-http-events@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-http-events
>>>        
>> _______________________________________________
>> sip-http-events mailing list
>> sip-http-events@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-http-events
>>      
>