[sipcore] Doc Shepherd review of draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam-03

"A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com> Sun, 06 October 2019 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mahoney@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D8D120048; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 12:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HnC4HU4Y3S6i; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 12:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B9E81200B6; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 12:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mutabilis-2.local ([47.186.30.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x96Jk01D040066 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 6 Oct 2019 14:46:01 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from mahoney@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1570391161; bh=M4xZD0lUdk6F6YWGgy2BImAlCf4SodEyz6QqAgwUtEs=; h=To:From:Subject:Date; b=CTiku/WFfECTbEmQyU5+m03htLGSSuPA7CNX3GQDuTacyNhbTSPZEK5/hFxc6Fp3T JEiyfA9RcMTkxpaZ4otqgjG0S7rPmh979JjSQ2sfS5mndKnFFPZrsqgBLuSuuy9S/H HlBQb8u4e6NE4Cty+MO/6gGS1LxdEwPcsBkDhbRA=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.30.41] claimed to be mutabilis-2.local
To: draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam@ietf.org, SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>
From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <b98c8b48-a83f-bba2-3e1d-b6536900b7e0@nostrum.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2019 14:46:00 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/a2dUIjDNa3SdA0FK3Lw3_9UAQRw>
Subject: [sipcore] Doc Shepherd review of draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam-03
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sipcore/>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2019 19:46:05 -0000

Hi all,

Below is my review of the version that incorporates the WGLC feedback. 
Thanks for addressing the feedback so far!

Jean

-------------
Minor issues:

S4. There should be a stronger tie-in to the ABNF given in RFC6442.

Current:

    The mechanism employed adds a parameter to the location value defined
    in [RFC6442] that identifies the hostname of the entity adding the
    location value to the Geolocation header field.

Suggested:

    The mechanism adds a geoloc-param parameter to the locationValue
    defined in [RFC6442] that identifies the hostname of the entity
    adding the location value to the Geolocation header field.

To make the terminology in this draft consistent with RFC6442:
s/location value/locationValue

When referring to header field parameters, SIP specs usually use the 
token in quotes ("expires", "qop") rather than the ABNF rule name 
(c-p-expires, message-qop) in text. Also, IANA lists header field 
parameters by their tokens in the "Header Field Parameters and Parameter 
Values" sub-registry. Instead of location-source, "loc-src" should be 
used in this draft's text.


S8. The IANA Considerations section needs a bit more clarification.

Current:

    8.1. Registration of location-source parameter for Geolocation header
         field

    This document calls for IANA to register a new SIP header parameter
    as per the guidelines in [RFC3261], which will be added to header
    sub-registry under http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters.

    Header Field:  Geolocation

    Parameter Name:  loc-src


Suggested:

    8.1. Registration of "loc-src" parameter for the Geolocation header
         field

    The IANA is asked to add a new SIP header field parameter for
    the Geolocation header field in the "Header Field Parameters and
    Parameter Values" subregistry (created by [RFC3968]) of the
    "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters" registry found at
    https://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters/.

    Header Field:  Geolocation

    Parameter Name:  loc-src

    Predefined Values:  No

    Reference:  This RFC


-----
Nits:

Header:  Use just the RFC number in the Updates: field - that is, 6442.

Abstract:  Add the sentence (but not a cite, though): "This document 
updates RFC 6442."


S1.

s/edge-proxies/edge proxies

Current: ...it does not provide any indication of which
    node actually added the location value.

Suggested: ...it does not identify which node added the
    location value.


S3.

Current:

    This document makes no attempt to comment on these various
    architectures or the rationale for them wishing to include multiple
    location values.

Suggested:

    This document does not comment on these various
    architectures or on the rationale for including multiple
    location values.


s/The The/The


Current:

    The functional architecture described within ETSI [M493] is an
    example of architecture where this parameter makes sense to be used.

Suggested:

    The functional architecture described within ETSI [M493] is an
    example of an architecture where it makes sense to use this
    parameter.


S4.

s/intermediarity/intermediary (multiple instances)


S5.

s/URI the provided/URI provided


S6.

Current:

    While the addition of the location-source
    parameter does provide an indicator of the entity that added the
    location in the signaling path this provides little more exposure
    than a proxy identity being added to the record-route header field.

Suggested:

    While the addition of the "loc-src"
    parameter identifies the entity that added the location in the
    signaling path, this addition provides little more exposure
    than adding a proxy identity to the Record-Route header field.


S7.

Current:

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

Suggested:

    To avoid problems with misinterpretation of the
    "loc-src" parameter, the value may be removed when passed to an
    other domain.


S9.

s/draft The/draft. The