From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: 'Paul Kyzivat' <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Thread-Topic: Proxy-feature: Suggested changes/additions based on IESG review
Thread-Index: AQHNqvs+KRwwwLi/rEqx+F/L6/XRU5e6qprQ
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:15:41 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B015940@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585340BAFAA8A@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
 <507C4901.8000402@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <507C4901.8000402@alum.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Proxy-feature: Suggested changes/additions based on
 IESG review
Precedence: list

Hi,=20

>> Based on comments during the IESG review, there are a couple of suggeste=
d changes/additions=20
>> to draft-ietf-sipcore-proxy-feature that we want to bring to the attenti=
on of the WG.
>>
>> First, it has been suggested that all 2119 uppercase words in section 5.=
3 (Feature Capability=20
>> Indicator Specification Requirements) and section 8 (Feature Capability =
Indicator Registration=20
>> Template) are changed to lowercase. The reason is because the sections a=
re 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.=20
> Yes, these are requirements about the "documentation", but without this i=
nformation interoperation in the use of=20
> particular feature capability indicators is impossible. Media feature tag=
s make this information optional. That was=20
> one of the motivations for setting up a separate registry - so that we co=
uld 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 manda=
tory." 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-o=
rder Feature-Caps header fields within a SIP message. We suggest the follow=
ing paragraph to be added to section 4.2.1:
>>
>>        "Based on features and policies, a SIP entity MAY remove a Featur=
e-
>>        Caps header field from a SIP message. Also, a SIP entity MAY remo=
ve
>>        a feature capability indicator from a Feature-Caps header field
>>        within a SIP message. A SIP entity SHOULD NOT re-order the Featur=
e-
>>        Caps header fields within a SIP message."
>
> I'm ok with this.

Good :)

Regards,

Christer