Re: [sipcore] Additional editorial suggestions (was Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance)

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

Robert,

Thanks for the very thorough review.
I agreed with everything you brought up.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 3/9/2011 4:46 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> Hi document editors -
>
> Here are a few additional suggestions that are purely editorial that I think would
> make the document stronger - please consider them, but its up to you whether to
> do anything with them.
>
> a) I suggest "your favorite local pizza delivery service" instead of "Pizza Hut"
>
> b) Replace 'The only conceivable way forward, when a second location is placed into
> the same SIP request by a SIP intermediary is to take a "you break it, you bought it" philosophy
> with respect to the inserting SIP intermediary' with 'This document takes a "you break it, you bought it"
> approach to dealing with second locations placed into a SIP request by an intermediary entity.'
>
> c) Delete the parenthetical '(we are not going to discuss any other reasons in this document, and
> there are many)'. That's obvious and distracts from the point.
>
> d) Replace 'SIP intermediaries are NOT RECOMMENDED to modify existing locationValue(s),
> and further not to delete any either' with 'SIP intermediaries SHOULD NOT modify or remove any
> existing locationValue(s).'
>
> e) Replace the first sentence of the paragraph at the end of page 10 with
> 'A Geolocation-Routing header-value that is set to "no" has no special security properties. It is
> at most a request for behavior within SIP intermediaries.'
>
> f) Replace 'SIP intermediaries MUST NOT add, modify or delete the location in a 424 response.'
> with 'SIP intermediaries that are forwarding (as opposed to generating) a 424 response MUST
> NOT add, modify, or delete any location appearing in that response.'
>
> g) Delete the '- etc...' bullet in the non-exclusive list of reasons for 1XX in section 4.4
>
> h) Delete 'At this time,' in the paragraph after that list. This document won''t alter things at
> any other time either.
>
> i) Replace "This was first brought up in section 3.2." with "The end of section 3.2 discusses
> how transaction timing considerations lead to this requirement."
>
>
> RjS
>
>
>
> On Feb 28, 2011, at 5:38 PM, Adam Roach - SIPCORE Chair wrote:
>
>> [as chair]
>>
>> The current editor of draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance believes that the document has no remaining technical issues[1], and is ready for evaluation. Today, we are starting a two-week working group last call period. This last call period ends on Tuesday, March 15th.
>>
>> The latest version of the document can be retrieved here:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance
>>
>> Any comments on the document should be sent to the SIPCORE mailing list.
>>
>> /a
>>
>> [1] John Elwell's editorial comments of February 25th have been noted by the authors, and will be treated as WGLC comments.
>
>