IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] #1: Editorial: section 3 is not an "Overview of Operations"

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Sat, 28 August 2010 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C1D33A695A for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.459
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.459 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 iHUsnIqsxryg for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 680033A689E for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn3 with SMTP id 3so4021818iwn.31 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=RI8aDjW0s1FduvMt0y4mf15qbRMT3HIwtg9PbqdrCLI=; b=xqja7S9DoOr6b5yY/iNHmxatUjPm9NMquHJBJXLbDHmQlFQubgkGZdJWacuSx9W54C ks5R4xkvUqIxyB4Ag3TJfa05LTTlTTHAfNWVj/MaSkdiNSOs70VE/fVh/9PGAL/Nurx7 RZWtw5c7GCtH5cUUKjJCMHY4tfq60U3dQFsfg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=kOgJ+083pNZIjtQSm4096Eu/+D615VZuSE8cZM0ET1LSnam/bCz+rl9o1JxluL/ywi 3RngYzR17YCF33x5QRZHLZeHjLW9frlpUsIx0xdm5Cbd5syixBpUSH3WFJEHGaqnDSiy dcNopG0MKIYS6duF2wAT89hX0ITZYkwNbrXYc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.155.212 with SMTP id t20mr2936491ibw.37.1283029657988; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.169.14 with HTTP; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <064.44026b0cd1e09234b3fd675a6b1dedb0@tools.ietf.org>
References: <064.44026b0cd1e09234b3fd675a6b1dedb0@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:07:37 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTindAuOuc8+GQPMf9BfR6++2PpeD_-2yWsqcbRj0@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: hkaplan@acmepacket.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sipcore] #1: Editorial: section 3 is not an "Overview of Operations"
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:07:55 -0000

Hadriel,

I appreciate your taking the time to do a detailed review and
separating out the issues. Obviously, I'll reply to each separately.

Yeah - I don't disagree. Alot of original text was pulled and then the
doc reorganized, removing the background section as you note.  I'll
revisit and update the doc to address these concerns.

Thanks,
Mary.

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:19 PM, sipcore issue tracker
<trac@tools.ietf.org> wrote:
> #1: Editorial: section 3 is not an "Overview of Operations"
> ------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
>  Reporter:  hkaplan@…               |       Owner:
>     Type:  defect                  |      Status:  new
>  Priority:  minor                   |   Milestone:  milestone1
> Component:  rfc4244bis              |     Version:  2.0
>  Severity:  In WG Last Call         |    Keywords:
> ------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
>  Section 3 is titled "Overview of Operations".  Of its 4 pages, it has
>  about two or three paragraphs which might actually qualify for that title.
>  It has about 2 pages of rationale for why the mechanism exists/is-needed,
>  and another couple pages of an example description and call flow diagram.
>  So... move the first page and a half to a "Background" or "Motivation"
>  section (or just delete it).  In fact, ISTM this is the text of the
>  original rfc4424's "Background" section.
>
>  The rest of it is still not really an overview of operations, except by-
>  example I guess.  What's needed is some text providing an overview of
>  operations.
>
> --
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/sipcore/trac/ticket/1>
> sipcore <http://tools.ietf.org/sipcore/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email