IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] Draft new version: SIP Push -26

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 01 March 2019 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
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 EF1AA130EBE; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:48:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 lmb9QAFYSpEp; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:48:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56DFE1200B3; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:48:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.29] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x21KmokE005608 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Mar 2019 14:48:51 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1551473332; bh=A5B5CMv5WgpWBhZ1x4mFrif/5VX3dXU4JCX4Aka/tvM=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=FWwtKEaPGtq2cBwMAyIBfd+jtAJYA2BkMt7X8wLeN3cn64FAfaQkc+doeaSEXnPsw VQDXAkoVzJ3NHP7aH7IabMHEsYyh+ZRVsziuTWCaZfBdPsJb/t4Z/hteh0cEi17V0A c0Uw2MF6t+UDnTFZJ5nCnI9tMfuhC/TXcSB76+Lc=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.29]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <1F7703E8-9132-4D49-A7D8-B09143B175B9@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_74B0DADE-7D44-4E53-923B-6D50326928FB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 14:48:46 -0600
In-Reply-To: <010FF140-EFC4-4833-A526-826D69A49DB5@ericsson.com>
Cc: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>, "sipcore-chairs@ietf.org" <sipcore-chairs@ietf.org>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <BF2B847A-20C4-4174-86CC-CAE96A7EBEB2@ericsson.com> <8F397308-9ED7-4CB7-B1F6-DC1A78018672@nostrum.com> <9673FB23-BB4C-4C6F-8E48-90650A5D0409@ericsson.com> <BFD4FF75-13A8-46C4-8F9A-BF60C964273C@nostrum.com> <010FF140-EFC4-4833-A526-826D69A49DB5@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/HuuzWWYe1jjgfgtlG4Lh1MxRH74>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Draft new version: SIP Push -26
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 20:48:59 -0000


> On Mar 1, 2019, at 4:36 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> 
>>>>  - "request that
>>>>  a push notification is sent”
>>>> 
>>>>  s/is/be  (note that this pattern occurs many times in the draft.)
>>> 
>>> As I indicated to Jean, the wording is the outcome of the previous discussions associated with Ekr's IESG review.
>> 
>> I’d be highly surprised if ekr objected to “be”.  it is more grammatically correct than “is”. The subjunctive “be" form is indicated by the fact that we talk about a request for something to happen, not a statement that something is true.
>> 
>> I’m not going to block things over it, but I would bet a beer that the RFC editor changes it. :-)
> 
>    So, you want to say "request that a push notification be sent"?
> 
>    If that's more grammatically correct I will fix as suggested.


Yes, that was what I had in mind.

Thanks!

Ben.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email