Re: [sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-keep - Peter's comments

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Tue, 03 August 2010 11:47 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 CDB5B3A69FD for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.319, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 k2G-g1pNYtv0 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D92D3A69F5 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7b91ae000001aef-e0-4c5801e302d7
Received: from esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 5F.C7.06895.3E1085C4; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 13:47:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.104]) by esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.87]) with mapi; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 13:47:47 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Peter Musgrave <peter.musgrave@magorcorp.com>, SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 13:47:46 +0200
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-keep - Peter's comments
Thread-Index: AQHLMbMTcjpHnHaouUibtCnVyykoJ5LPkBng
Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850CA572@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850B5C23@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850B5C23@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-keep - Peter's comments
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: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 11:47:21 -0000

Hi Peter, 

Some proposed new/modified text based on your comments.

>>I have read draft-ietf-sipcore-keep in detail for the first time.
>>
>>I have one questions and some Nits.
>>
>>Question: 7.3 Should the TRYING (not shown) from P1 to Alice have 
>>keep=30 in it? What if the 200 OK takes e.g. longer than 30sec and the 
>>NAT pinhole closes?
> 
>It is true that the flow only shows the 200 OK, but the text 
>in section 4.4 responses in general.
> 
>I guess we could add some text that points out that the keep 
>value should be sent as soon as possible, as it may take a 
>while before the final response is sent.

What about the following new text in section 4.4.

	"In the case of an INVITE request, if a SIP entity sends or forwards multiple responses (provisional and final) associated with the 
	request, and it indicates willingness to receive keep-alives, it only needs to insert a "keep" parameter value in one of the responses. The
	SIP entity SHOULD indicate the willingess to receive keep-alives as soon as possible."

--------------
 
>Nits
>1. s/Eventhough/Even though/
>
>1.3 "As specified in [RFC5626], usage keep-alives is not implicitly 
>negotiated for such flows, why usage needs to be explicitly 
>negotiated." Re-phrase?
>
>4.2.1 s/The section/This section/
>
>4.4 para 2. This paragraph is one sentence. I read it many 
>times - I gave up.

I tried to make the paragraph more readable. It still contain a long sentence, but please let me know if it's easier to understand now:

	"When a SIP entity creates or receives a response, and the adjacent downstream SIP entity that sent the associated request indicated 
	willingness to send keep-alives, if the SIP entity is willing to receive keep-alives associated with the registration (in case of 
	a REGISTER response), or the dialog (in case of a response to an initial request for a dialog, or a response to a mid-dialog 
	target refresh request), from the adjacent downstream SIP entity it MUST add a parameter value to the "keep" parameter, before sending 
	or forwarding the response. The parameter can contain a recommended keep-alive frequency, or a zero value."

Regards,

Christer