[sipcore] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-08: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 05 June 2019 19:00 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected@ietf.org, Jean Mahoney <mahoney@nostrum.com>, sipcore-chairs@ietf.org, mahoney@nostrum.com, sipcore@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-ID: <155976120021.22406.17255305238999687007.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 12:00:00 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/yIsZ8vs_GUa8lCkJkpJWh7c2udw>
Subject: [sipcore] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-08: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected/



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

1) A couple of remarks on this sentence in Sec 3.1:
“If an intermediary issues a 608 code and there are not indicators the
   calling party will use the contents of the Call-Info header field for
   malicious purposes (see Section 6), the intermediary MUST include a
   Call-Info header field in the response.”
  a) -> s/not/no/
  b) Maybe also add a “that” as it would make this long easier to read:
“If an intermediary issues a 608 code and there are no indicators that the
   calling party will use the contents of the Call-Info header field for
   malicious purposes (see Section 6), …
  c) After having read Section 6, I find this MUST rather strong. I was
  expecting more “concrete” instructions. I understand why you want to have a
  MUST here, but section 6 reads very much like a SHOULD.

2) Editorial: In this sentence in 3.4 I also think a “that” would help:
“The degenerate case is the intermediary is the only element that
   understands the semantics of the 608 response code.“

3) One more purely editorial comment: Short title is “Status Reject”, however,
to be closer to the long title I would rather recommend something like “SIP
Response Code for Rejected Calls”.

[sipcore] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft… Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker