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

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

Robert

Thanks for the additional scrubbing.

These will also be part of the post WGLC version.

James

At 03:46 PM 3/9/2011, 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.