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

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Mon, 29 November 2010 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6749C28C0EF for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:17:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.879, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xLtY0BpQnfnB for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:16:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBAF23A6BCC for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:16:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dn3-177.estacado.net (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oATGHspk062980 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:17:54 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585030B1910@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:17:54 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <941257A2-81B6-4EB2-A8ED-5E6E13B183A6@nostrum.com>
References: <4892E0CC-52C7-4422-A5DA-C6A7553A4053@nostrum.com> <224F5CB1ECAB2C45BC64065AFD0339650406B5FC94@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585030B1910@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] AD review: draft-ietf-sipcore-keep-08 - example encoding
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:17:00 -0000

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