Re: [sipcore] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam-04

[Ines Robles <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roland,

Thank you for addressing my comments. I agree with them.

Best,

Ines.



On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:50 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ines,
> Thank you for your review.
> I have incoperated your comments within the draft.
>
> On Question 1 In Section 1 I have changed the last paragraph by adding the
> reference of RF64412 as follows:
>  " This document extends the Geolocation header field of RFC6442, by
> allowing an entity adding the locationValue to identity itself using a
> hostname. This is done by defining a new geoloc-param header field
> parameter,
>
> Hope this is OK for you.
>
> Question 2: It is difficult to reference the various architectures for
> emergency since each country, based on national regulation rules, may have
> it's own architecture.
>
> Question 3: This apply to the rules defined in RFC6442 in Section 4.4.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Roland
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Ines Robles via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. Januar 2020 23:29
> An: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Betreff: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam-04
>
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for
> the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call
> comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam-04
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review Date: 2020-01-26
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-01-27
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary:
>
> This document proposes for SIP protocol, a new geolocation parameter, the
> location-source ("loc-src"), so that an entity adding the locationValue to
> Geolocation header field can identify itself using its hostname.
>
> The document does not present major issues. I have some minor
> questions/suggestions at the end.
>
> Major issues: Not found
>
> Minor issues: Not found
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> Section 4: "A UA MUST..." it would be nice to expand UA "A User Agent (UA)
> MUST..."
>
> Questions/Suggestions:
>
> 1- Section 1: I think it would be nice to add explicitly "This document
> updates
> 6442 by extending the Geolocation header field..."
>
> 2- Section 3:  where it states "There are various architectures defined
> f...Each has it own characteristics with corresponding pros and cons...." I
> think it would be nice to add a reference/s to it.
>
> 3- Which Geolocation-Error codes correspond to the situation when the
> "loc-scr"
> field presents some error, or one LocationValue presents two "loc-src"
> fields and the locationValue in both cases is correct?
>
> Thank you for this document,
>
> Ines.
>
>