Re: [sipcore] Proxy-feature: Suggested changes/additions based on IESG review

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi, 

>> Based on comments during the IESG review, there are a couple of suggested changes/additions 
>> to draft-ietf-sipcore-proxy-feature that we want to bring to the attention of the WG.
>>
>> First, it has been suggested that all 2119 uppercase words in section 5.3 (Feature Capability 
>> Indicator Specification Requirements) and section 8 (Feature Capability Indicator Registration 
>> Template) are changed to lowercase. The reason is because the sections are about documentation, not interoperability.
>
> I disagree with this change.
>
> *Some* of the usage is probably gratuitous and unnecessary, but there is some of it that is *intended* to be normative. 
> Yes, these are requirements about the "documentation", but without this information interoperation in the use of 
> particular feature capability indicators is impossible. Media feature tags make this information optional. That was 
> one of the motivations for setting up a separate registry - so that we could make this information mandatory.
>
> My opinions per section:
>
> - 5.3.1: retain 2119 language
> - 5.3.2: "
> - 5.3.3: "
> - 5.3.4: "
> - 5.3.5: "
> - 5.3.6: "
> - 5.3.7: need not be normative
> - 5.3.8: need not be normative
> - 8: use of 2119 language is redundant
>
> Regarding section 8:
>
> It already says: "Instructions are preceded by '|'.  All fields are mandatory." So using MUST within those is redundant and can be omitted.

I am ok with you suggestion.


-------------------------------

>> Second, it was suggested to clarify whether an entity can remove or re-order Feature-Caps header fields within a SIP message. We suggest the following paragraph to be added to section 4.2.1:
>>
>>        "Based on features and policies, a SIP entity MAY remove a Feature-
>>        Caps header field from a SIP message. Also, a SIP entity MAY remove
>>        a feature capability indicator from a Feature-Caps header field
>>        within a SIP message. A SIP entity SHOULD NOT re-order the Feature-
>>        Caps header fields within a SIP message."
>
> I'm ok with this.

Good :)

Regards,

Christer