[sipcore] WGLC draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-01 review Section 3.7
<R.Jesske@telekom.de> Mon, 15 October 2012 14:45 UTC
Return-Path: <R.Jesske@telekom.de>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A81811E80EC for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 07:45:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KI6NhotyO1cm for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 07:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail83.telekom.de (tcmail83.telekom.de [62.225.183.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E62311E80D2 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 07:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from he113445.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.105]) by tcmail81.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 15 Oct 2012 16:45:18 +0200
Received: from HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.17]) by HE113445.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:45:18 +0200
From: R.Jesske@telekom.de
To: sipcore@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:45:17 +0200
Thread-Topic: WGLC draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-01 review Section 3.7
Thread-Index: Ac2q47GCHWMnI2fiRW2RNKFfdqBVSA==
Message-ID: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D154504810D@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: de-DE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [sipcore] WGLC draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-01 review Section 3.7
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:45:22 -0000
Hi,
here is my review of Section 3.7
In addition to Brett's comments I have the following:
1. Within F6/F7 the cause parameter (408) regarding RFC4458 is missing.
The cause parameter is also included within cases where no Response appears. It is the same as for the escaped Reason.
e.G.:
History-Info: <sip:vm@example.com;target=sip:carol%40example.com>; cause=408\
index=1.3;mp=1.2
2. F4/F5/F6/F7 the text of Response code is missing e.G. ?Reason=SIP%3Bcause%3D302; text="Moved Temporarily"
3. F6/F7 The Question is if it is implementation depended if the target parameter is put into both entries identifying the Voice Mail. If it is so then some text to point to the fact that this is possible would be nice.
4.F6/F7 Last H-I there is the rc=1.3 missing
History-Info: <sip:vm@192.0.2.5;target=sip:carol%40example.com>;\
index=1.3.1; rc=1.3
5. Perhaps a hint that End devices don't have to put in an "mp", "rc", "np" would help the reader to differentiate between the different use cases. (3.6 versus 3.7)
I hope I don't miss anything.
Best Regards
Roland
- [sipcore] WGLC draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-call… R.Jesske
- Re: [sipcore] WGLC draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-… Shida Schubert
- Re: [sipcore] WGLC draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-… R.Jesske
- Re: [sipcore] WGLC draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-… Shida Schubert