Re: [sipcore] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push-21: (with COMMENT)

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,


Thank You for the review! Please see inline.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

>One question on the new PNS registry:
>I don't quite understand why the policy is "Specification Required". I guess
>you need some description of the values for pn-provider, pn-param and pn-prid.
>However, you could just add these fields to the registry directly (with the
>option to just provide a reference in at least the param and prid fields if the
>description is rather extensive). However, for e.g. RFC8030 is would easily be
>possible to describe everyhing you need within the registry. For apns and fcm
>you can simply add a pointer to this new RFC if you think the description is
>too long to be included in the registry directly. But this could make
>registration for new simple services easier.


>And one minor comment on some language:
>Should these sentence in 3.1  and 5.2 maybe be normative as well:
>"If a SIP UA
>   receives a push notification that contains a payload the UA can
>   discard the payload, but the UA will still send a binding-refresh
>  REGISTER request."
>e.g NEW
>"If a SIP UA
>   receives a push notification that contains a payload the UA can
>   discard the payload, but the UA MUST still send a binding-refresh
>   REGISTER request."

I was thinking that since the presence of payload don't have any impact on the normative procedures, a MUST is not needed. But, I am fine to modify as suggested.


>"A proxy
>   will not request push notifications towards a UA that has not
>   provided a pn-prid SIP URI parameter."
>e.g. NEW
>"A proxy
>   MUST NOT request push notifications towards a UA that has not
>   provided a pn-prid SIP URI parameter."

In this case I'd prefer to keep the existing text, because the normative proxy procedures are described elsewhere.

But, as you suggest below, I can add a reference.

>It seems like these sentences are on purpose not normative (maybe because as
>they are part of a note...?), however, I think it would be more clear to state
>those requirements normatively as well. Otherwise if you think these
>requirement are described normatively somewhere else in the doc, I think a
>forward reference would be good (I didn't double-check myself).
>
>nits:
>- maybe s/consider the interval too small/consider the interval too short/
>- maybe s/response Section 8.1/response (see Section 8.1)/
>- s/proxy receives a receives a SIP/proxy receives a SIP/

I will fix as suggested.

Regards,

Christer