Re: [sipcore] AD review: draft-ietf-sipcore-keep-08 - example encoding

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

I didn't intend for you to modify the existing examples. The Note is good.
But I suggest you _add_ a single instance of a Via header field that is syntactically
correct near the beginning of the document as an explanatory figure.
Something like:

Topmost Via header field value in a request:
  Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK776asdhds;keep;rport
Topmost Via header field value in an associated response:
  Via : SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.example.com;received=192.0.2.2;rport=18250;keep=20;branch=z9hG4bK776asdhds

RjS

On Nov 26, 2010, at 3:13 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:

> 
> Hi Robert,
> 
> -------
> 
>>> * All of the examples showing Via header fields use a shorthand, 
>>> pseudo-code style representation of the header field format. 
>>> It would be good to explicitly note that in the document. It would be 
>>> better to provide one example that was syntactically correct.
>> 
>> [CHH] I assume you mean that, instead of "Via:UAC" and 
>> "Via:P1" I would use something like "Via:uac.operator.com" 
>> and "Via:p1.operator.com"?
>> 
>> Personally I think it's more clear to use pseudo-style (as 
>> the example is not supposed to be teach-yourself-SIP), but I 
>> can change according to your suggestion.
> 
> [CHH] I took a look at this. Using syntactically correct header fields would make the example quite messy, due to the length of the header fields, so my suggestion would be to instead add the following paragraph to the general section of the examples:
> 
> 	"NOTE: The examples do not show the actual syntactical encoding of the request lines, response lines
> 	and the Via header fields, but rather a pseudo code in order to identity the message type and to 
> 	which entity a Via header field is associated."
> 
> -------
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer