Re: [sipcore] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-08

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Tue, 11 June 2019 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 6ADB8120150; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 09:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=HQuLa/jQ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=qT6ynRBD
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FeHGnTyrDLRY; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 09:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6412C12012A; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 09:17:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95AA3220DB; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 12:17:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 11 Jun 2019 12:17:41 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm3; bh=F tXt+phJReRj6EptM0G1EcuxiePz79L3igWX4S+CiG4=; b=HQuLa/jQDGP8htImc kTz6T1cFr1cf018b3D40hr0TjXITlNeZ+cDKurtJbfdMehnSicR40ocmtDU+Mtph A9C0lE3ZkNJGpUjVC988tk6R4lLsmsCEebSQNjNfRet+MPVU1SJpnAq34LiVAhJC R+983cSN3X/pBh+wQ5LUlwiM8LDAi5vO/KklLZbcBh87ohhfirgzm2hGx9LvzDJL A+8Ho7IKU0QXFSppIwCLUmVQZ/b6MMSEYmO14s0e02OT7z+ZsOmgT2TsZ4VKRac+ 91V5RGRgY/6VVeuXhMgjVBnN83gsvBE38ajn7IVuhq0exsk5ZIZEUe215sNj7ENi gfJMw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=FtXt+phJReRj6EptM0G1EcuxiePz79L3igWX4S+Ci G4=; b=qT6ynRBDUi0/qbftpplGyS9BNBXf6KjsM80CYRef6RoU0zXZOQFBbmFgK cmZcvhq4um867h8gt6pCsgBxilb0KL05GxQBWjKHfogvBc43t3KjkuWyUti+PP7e +BmSRvJk+9FbSKemUNPPr13ewlO7g31exKK/kC00a+SN20nkhe1hllUYzqnMOf98 eKa68kAcbNi06c8Z0UIxQR3oB5OaV6c5WXNFb4mpIiInDn8CIEgrNEswy7Y7ug7X TWnN3d7rbvRVBEc+rlq4IBrogZWM554ZeFG8Nil/63ohGyQUlyS1U6TEFNu1aFxc 3h6HjffcuNXNTUxPSlmSTdCHvKPOg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:JdT_XN8D-1yKd6hJagUBJ8EZbSv0OxEzw09aBUqnuDjmyiRh4qXf5A>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrudehhedgkeefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomheptehlihhs shgrucevohhophgvrhcuoegrlhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhnqeenucffohhmrg hinhepihgvthhfrdhorhhgnecukfhppedujeefrdefkedruddujedrkeejnecurfgrrhgr mhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrlhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhnnecuvehluhhsth gvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:JdT_XBbCaZniYCoGyyEsy6RZ-vTfmYhnaWZqzhSN250nIk7wGTeH6A> <xmx:JdT_XGrtJ7kGyVa4vZTPd2b7l-SoSbP39OyUlFm1mtHalrP3WPjCjw> <xmx:JdT_XNSVU3aBOKRkB5R0FBfiLmW3JJAd76l83NVCT9u9Z0Rwt3iitA> <xmx:JdT_XJrO-4Sefy767CzH_pPSqEBfyw0nl-clVBGbFXZB2vd_lOvv2g>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.87]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 99FAD380089; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 12:17:40 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <155959743193.24804.13536348952609913643@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 12:17:39 -0400
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, sipcore@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C412B39E-88E1-4288-8449-6C26DC07EB30@cooperw.in>
References: <155959743193.24804.13536348952609913643@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/qilE4FBElY69xkKGu3rMHGPKoFQ>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-08
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:17:48 -0000

Ines, thanks for your review, which I pointed to in my No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Jun 3, 2019, at 5:30 PM, Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review result: Ready
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-08
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review Date: 2019-06-03
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-06-04
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> 
> I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written.
> 
> The document defines the 608 (Rejected) SIP response code, that  enables
> calling parties to learn that an intermediary rejected their call attempt.
> 
> I have some minor questions.
> 
> Major issues: none
> 
> Minor issues: none
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Section 1- I think it would be nice to expand SIP and add a reference to
> RFC3261 the first time that SIP is mentioned in the Introduction.
> 
> Comments/Questions:
> 
> 1- Section 1. "...a user (human)..."
> 
>  A user could be as well a smart device, right?. For example, in a smart home
>  scenario, we have Alexa rejecting a call from a supermarket. The call
>  rejection is ordered by a human or ordered by another device (e.g. a fridge
>  with temporal calling-management functions that can send commands to Alexa to
>  accept, reject calls from supermarket ). In the latter case the user is not a
>  human, but a smart device.  In this case, Alexa would be the UAS?
> 
>  2- In Figure 2 is not clear to me if the INVITE command goes as well to the
>  "call analytics engine" entity, since the arrow goes directly to the UAS.
> 
>  Should this image indicate arrows to the "call analytics engine" entity, to
>  be aligned with figure 1?
> 
>  3- Figure 5:
> 
>                                                                                                        +-+--+-+
> +---+         +-----+          +---+         +-----+         +-----+          
> |Called| |UAC+--->+Proxy+--->+SBC+--->+Proxy+--->+Proxy+--->+Party | +---+     
>    +-----+           +---+        +-----+         +-----+          |Proxy |
>                                                                                                         +------+
> 
>  3.1- The arrows of the UAC to the Called Party Proxy are unidirectional.
>  Should be bidirectional? Since there are messages from the Called Party Proxy
>  entity to the SBC, and then to the UAC.
> 
>  3.2- Should the "Proxy" entities be identified for example with Proxy A,
>  Proxy B and Proxy C, to indicate that they are different Proxy entities?
> 
>  3.3- Should be added in the figure the flow of messages that the "Proxy"
>  entities goes through, or at least mentioned when explaining figure 5.
> 
>  Thank you for this draft,
> 
>  Ines.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art