Re: [sipcore] WGLC: draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam - Christer's review

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Below is my WGLC review. 

NUTSHELL:

>From a technical point of view, the document is ready to move forward. However, there are some editorial issues that I'd like the authors to address.

---

GENERAL:

Q_GEN_1:

- Please always use capital 'G' for Geolocation header field.

Q_GEN_2:

- Instead of talking about "The parameter defined in this specification", use the name of the parameter.

Q_GEN_3:

- In some places the text talks about the loc-src parameter. I think it shall talk about the location-source parameter instead, as that is the name in the ABNF. loc-src is just the encoding.

Q_GEN_4:

- While RFC 6442 talks generally about "SIP intermediaries", this draft talks about "proxies". Is there a reason for that?

---

ABSTRACT:

Q_ABS_1:

 The text gives some background about a problem, but there is no words about what the draft does to address that problem. I think there should be a sentence saying: "This document blah blah blah...".

---

SECTION 1:

Q_1_1:

The first sentence says:

   "The SIP geolocation specification [RFC6442] describes the
   "Geolocation" SIP header field which is used to indicate that the SIP
   message is conveying location information.  The specification
   suggests that only one location value should be conveyed."

- The Geolocation SIP header field does not only indicate that the SIP message is used to convey location information, it also contains a reference to the location information.

- Does RFC 6442 really suggest that only one location value should be conveyed? The way I read it is that an intermediary should not add location information to a request that already contains it. Would it be more appropriate to say:

"The specification specifies that SIP intermediaries should not add location values to a SIP request that already contains location value."

Q_1_2:

The text says:

   "This document adds a location-source (loc-src) parameter to the
   location values in [RFC6442] so that the entity adding the location
   value to geolocation header field can identify itself using its
   hostname."

- I think you shall be more specific, and say something like:

"This document extends the Geolocation header field, by allowing an entity adding the location value to identity itself using a hostname. This is done by defining a new geoloc-param header field parameter, location-source."

---

SECTION 3:

Q_3_1:

- s/specific/specification

---

SECTION 4:

Q_4_1:

The syntax says:

location-source = "loc-src=" (hostname )
hostname = <defined in RFC3261>

- I suggest "loc-src" EQUAL (hostname).

- s/(hostname)/hostname


A_4_2:

The text says:

   "Only a fully qualified host name is valid, an IP address MUST NOT be
   added by an entity conforming with this specification.  If a node
   conforming to this specification receives a geolocation header field
   with a loc-src parameter containing an IP address then the parameter
   MUST be removed."

- It is not only about not supporting IP addresses - the syntax does not even allow an IP address. Perhaps something like:

"Only a fully qualified host name is valid. The syntax does not support IP addresses, and if an entity conforming to this..."


Q_4_3:

The text says:

   "Any proxy adding a location value to a geolocation header field
   SHOULD also add its host name using the loc-src parameter so that it
   is clearly identified as the node adding the location."

- I suggest to say "A proxy conformant to this specification adding a location value..."

- s/SHOULD also add its host name using the loc-src parameter/SHOULD also add a location-source header field parameter".


Q_4_4:

The text says:

"A UE MUST NOT provide a loc-src parameter value."

I suggest "A UA MUST NOT insert a location-source header field parameter"

---

SECTION 7:

Q_7_1:

The text says: "the that they". I assume that is a mistake.

Q_7_2:

The text says:

"To avoid problems of wrong interpretation of loc-src the value may be discarded when passed to an other domain."

Is "removed" more appropriate than "discarded"?


Regards,

Christer





-----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
Lähettäjä: sipcore <[e-mail]> Puolesta A. Jean Mahoney
Lähetetty: sunnuntai 18. elokuuta 2019 20.57
Vastaanottaja: [e-mail]
Aihe: Re: [sipcore] WGLC: draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam

Hi all,

The WGLC is being extended to Friday, Sept 13, since many people go on vacation in August and early September.

Thanks!

Jean



On 8/15/19 2:43 PM, A. Jean Mahoney wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> This begins the Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam 
> (Location Source Parameter for the SIP Geolocation Header Field).
> 
> Please post any feedback to the sipcore mailing list by Friday, August 30.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam/
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Jean
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

_______________________________________________
sipcore mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore