Re: [sipcore] WGLC for draft-ietf-sipcore-proxy-feature-02

Hi Paul;

 my comments inline on relevant point..

On May 31, 2012, at 12:52 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

> 
> 
>>> 11. Section 5.2.1 last paragraph
>>> 
>>> I am assuming that the text is trying to mandate entity adding SIP Feature-Caps header to add a "new" header on top of the existing one if there is and
>>> prohibit SIP entity wanting to indicate features and capabilities from adding only the value.. Am I correct? If so this I think should be explicitly stated.
>> 
>> The ABNF allows for having multiple header fields, or a single header field with comma separated values, and the semantics are identical in both cases.
>> However, we normally don't explicitly talk about both options, but instead talk about adding new header fields.
> 
> Christer and I discussed this. I had proposed some wording that covered both ways. But it was cumbersome, and I'm not aware of any other draft that deals with it. So I decided I was ok with this. But if Shida has an idea of how to make this clear without being cumbersome then I'm all for it.
> 

 I am okay with it too. I was just wanting to clarify it... 

 It may help for those implementors that have read the draft once and 
end up implementing based on ABNF, to add a note in ABNF repeating 
what is stated at the end of 5.2.1.. To encourage implementors to 
follow what is suggested.. To take it even further you can add a text 
with "MUST NOT add value to an existing SIP Feature-Caps header" but 
that may be too much..

 Regards
  Shida

> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

Re: [sipcore] WGLC for draft-ietf-sipcore-proxy-feature-02 - Shida's comments