Re: [sipcore] WGLC for draft-ietf-sipcore-proxy-feature-02 - Shida's comments

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Thu, 31 May 2012 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 8870F21F879F for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 May 2012 08:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.174
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FoPutJd4Oh2I for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 May 2012 08:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6158221F87A3 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 May 2012 08:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7fc66d000006fdc-32-4fc78edd59ac
Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 04.3D.28636.DDE87CF4; Thu, 31 May 2012 17:31:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.250]) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.90]) with mapi; Thu, 31 May 2012 17:31:40 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 17:30:46 +0200
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] WGLC for draft-ietf-sipcore-proxy-feature-02 - Shida's comments
Thread-Index: Ac0/OuGH5YVzA0cDQtCfMtAM7RK4AQAB3gJa
Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852C457B13B9@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852C459A2D12@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <4FC64235.9060501@alum.mit.edu> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852C459A31A5@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>, <4FC7821C.2060209@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4FC7821C.2060209@alum.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre7dvuP+Bn19ghYrNhxgtfj6YxOb A5PH3/cfmDyWLPnJFMAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJVx49xmpoIvHBXrjxxjbmA8y9bFyMEhIWAi 8WsDYxcjJ5ApJnHh3nqgMBeHkMApRokDFy4xQjgLGSWez/vFAtLAJmAh0f1PG8QUEdCQmLRV DaSXWUBT4tHOvUwgNouAqsTqMwdZQWxhgQiJS0cugsVFBCIl1qzbxwphG0nsnrYdzOYVCJf4 /OkGM4gtJPCcUeJJgzyIzSmgI9Hcv5odxGYEuu37qTVMELvEJW49mc8EcbOAxJI955khbFGJ l4//sULUi0rcaV/PCFGvI7Fg9yc2CFtbYtnC18wQewUlTs58wjKBUWwWkrGzkLTMQtIyC0nL AkaWVYzCuYmZOenlhnqpRZnJxcX5eXrFqZsYgXFzcMtv3R2Mp86JHGKU5mBREuflStrvLySQ nliSmp2aWpBaFF9UmpNafIiRiYNTqoExzfbRljLtqzns02JDasSDzXfI7lp556G12Bzl7um9 jYKhv1/I7ls7ZXYDT/3WpR4ZGdVyVj4lBcxZXZa1jPurTZnV+/9/tQv3vFWm2VtgeGnPG9Ff i6+FHf++dWfstrenJcW+3I5P3sOzcO6ncxtz9RhY1LbXffo85+A75cR4c+7aTdcbr2xVYinO SDTUYi4qTgQAydd2zmkCAAA=
Cc: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] WGLC for draft-ietf-sipcore-proxy-feature-02 - Shida's comments
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:31:43 -0000

Hi,

>>> That's mostly true, but 3840 does call out some existing feature tags from the ietf tree for use with sip. So how about:
>>>
>>>     NOTE: In contrast to RFC 2506, this specification only defines a
>>>     global tree and a sip tree, as they are the only trees defined in
>>>     RFC 2506 that have been used for defining SIP-specific media feature
>>>     tags.
>>
>> The sip tree isn't defined in RFC 2506, so I think both the old and new note text is missleading.
>
> Good point.
>
>> What about:
>>
>>       "NOTE: In contrast to RFC 2506, this specification only defines a
>>       global tree, as it is the only tree defined in RFC 2506 that has been
>>       used for defining SIP-specific media feature tags."
>
> This is correct. But maybe it isn't quite the point that needs to be
> made. How about:
>
>    NOTE: In contrast to RFCs 2506 and 3840, this specification only
>     defines a global tree and a sip tree, as they are the only trees
>     defined in those RFCs that have been used for defining SIP-specific
>     media feature tags.

Looks good.

Regards,

Christer