Re: [sipcore] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-07.txt

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

We made this changed based upon feedback from Stephen Farrell during IESG
review (of 4244bis although his comment was explicitly about the call flow
document) that the example didn't show anything was privacy protected.  You
should have seen his comments and my response, since you copied on the
email threads.

Note, that a variation of this flow was originally taken from RFC 4244 and
modified.  It was simplified and we lost the idea that was in the flow in
RFC 4244 that there would some information that wasn't visible in the
response.   For the flow in the -06 version there was nothing that wasn't
revealed in other messages.  So, we updated the example to be closer to the
intent of RFC 4244.  The authors reviewed, but obviously, since we hadn't
submitted the revision no one else has *yet* had the chance to review. We
had planned to send a note to the WG mailing list about this change as we
clearly recognized it was beyond the scope of nit fixes based on an IESG
review.

So, if others can also review.   You are correct that we failed to update
the message numbers in the details, but more importantly we need feedback
on the header details. Again, the authors have double-checked, but we won't
ask the AD to do anything further with this doc until we have ensured we
have addressed the other IESG review comments, as well.

Thanks,
Mary.


On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Authors,
>
> I note that there is a significantly enhanced example in section 3.2.
> Did you get a thorough review of this from some competent people?
>
> I don't trust myself to do a thorough job. But without looking too hard I
> can see some problems. Two new messages have been inserted in the middle.
> That means the old F4,F5,F6 have been renumbered F6,F7,F8. But those
> changes aren't reflected in the message detail.
>
>         Thanks,
>         Paul (as co-chair & shepherd)
>
>