Re: [sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme comments

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

...

>>> Section 2 is all about the changes introduced to the Digest mechanism.
>>
>> Yes, but that doesn't really say anything about what exactly is updated.
>>
>>> If that is not sufficient, can you propose some text?
>> 
>> Something like this:
>>
>> "2.  Updates RFC 3261
>>
> I do not see the need for this change. The first page has "Update: 3261" and the first sentence in section 2 explicitly states that again.

Yes, but in a draft it's good to see where the updates are, so that implementers etc can jump there. Granted, this is a very short draft, and there aren't too many other sections.

>>This section replaces the reference to RFC2617 with a reference to RFC7617 in RFC3261, and
>>describes the modifications to the usage of the Digest mechanism in RFC3261 resulting from 
>>that reference update. It adds support for the SHA-256 and SHA-512/256 algorithms. It adds
>>required support for the "qop" option. It provides additional UAC and UAS procedures regarding usage of
>>multiple SIP Authorization, WWW-Authenticate and Proxy-Authenticate header fields, including 
>>in which order to insert and process them. It provides guidance regarding forking. Finally, it
>>updates the SIP protocol BNF as required by the updates."
>>
>>Feel free to modify, remove - or add if I have forgot something.
>
> All of this is specified later in section 2, but if this helps someone, I do not mind adding this to section 2.
 
Again, it's an overview of the changes. And, much of the text is already in section 2, so __

>> In addition, I suggest to change the names of subsections 2.3 and 2.4.
>>
>> The current name of subsection 2.3 is "The Authenticate Response Header Field". But, there is no such header field 
>> described. The section talks about other header fields (with similar names). Could we simply call it "UAS behavior"?
>>
>> The current name of subsection 2.4 is "The Authorization Request Header Field". But, the section also talks about the 
>> WWW-Authenticate header field. Could we simply call it "UAC behavior"?
>
> Sure. I can make these changes.

Make sure you name all header fields in the text too. In some cases you have left the header field name from the text, probably because you assume it's the same as in the section name.

Thanks!

Regards,

Christer