[sipcore] Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis-02: (with COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Roland,

Thank you for your email, I am still curious to understand why an errata would not have been enough but this is OK ;-)

Regards

-éric

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 27 June 2025 at 09:10
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: AW: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis-02: (with COMMENT)
Hi Eric,
Thank you for your evaluation and comments.
I would like to mention that some of your suggestions have already been addressed, and the necessary editorial changes have been implemented. The final draft will follow soon.
We see the documentation as is within this document as sufficient, since it is really one main change in a procedure for 3GPP networks which is important.
This document closes a long existing dependency in 3GPP.

Thank you again for your comments.

Best Regards

Roland


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Juni 2025 10:43
An: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Betreff: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis-02: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis-02: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis-02
CC @evyncke

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nit.

Special thanks to Paul Kyzivat for the shepherd's short write-up and the
justification of the intended status, but to be honest, ***I would have
appreciated an explanation why an erratum was not used rather than an I-D***.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Abstract

I support Paul Wouters' DISCUSS (also indicated by id-nits) about the lack of
mentioning the obsoleting of RFC 7976. I am not repeating Deb Cooley's comments
on the same point as I also support her comments.

### Title

Please remove the filename from the title.

Suggest removing 'P-header' and perhaps 'SIP' from the title.

### One I-D for 1 sentence ?

As far as I can tell, the whole purpose of this 9-page I-D is to change *only
one sentence* in an update-bis... I.e., a an update I-D for an update I-D.

1) could a simple erratum be used ?

2) why not authoring a rfc7315-bis ?

The only change I was able to spot was a change from
```
The     P-Visited-Network-ID header field can appear in all SIP methods
except ACK, BYE, CANCEL, NOTIFY, PRACK, INFO, and UPDATE.
```

to
```
The P-Visited-Network-ID header field can appear in all SIP requests
*and the associated non-100 response message* except ACK, BYE, CANCEL,
NOTIFY, PRACK, INFO, UPDATE.
```

*Going through the whole WGLC, IETF LC, IESG evaluation, RFC Editor processing
for such a small change appears to me like a huge waste of energy.*

### Section 3

s/the associated non-100 response message/the associated non-100 response
message*s*/