[Sipping] Comments to cc-conferencing-05 (WGLC)
Miguel Garcia <Miguel.An.Garcia@nokia.com> Thu, 04 November 2004 12:42 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14972 for <sipping-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 07:42:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CPhCS-0002fU-Qz for sipping-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:58:49 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CPgkf-0007YB-Fm; Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:30:05 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CPgcl-0006KA-MY for sipping@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:21:57 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA13830 for <sipping@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 07:21:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mgw-x2.nokia.com ([131.228.20.22]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CPgsG-0002HP-UW for sipping@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:37:58 -0500
Received: from esdks004.ntc.nokia.com (esdks004.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.159]) by mgw-x2.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id iA4CLie04590; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:21:44 +0200 (EET)
X-Scanned: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:21:11 +0200 Nokia Message Protector V1.3.31 2004060815 - RELEASE
Received: (from root@localhost) by esdks004.ntc.nokia.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id iA4CLBw0028493; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:21:11 +0200
Received: from mgw-int1.ntc.nokia.com (172.21.143.96) by esdks004.ntc.nokia.com 00ABPJYu; Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:20:51 EET
Received: from esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh002.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.77]) by mgw-int1.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id iA4CKja18698; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:20:45 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [172.21.37.239] ([172.21.37.239]) by esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:20:36 +0200
Message-ID: <418A1E94.1040409@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:20:36 +0200
From: Miguel Garcia <Miguel.An.Garcia@nokia.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, es-es
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alan Johnston <alan.johnston@mci.com>, Orit Levin <oritl@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Nov 2004 12:20:36.0102 (UTC) FILETIME=[B0281260:01C4C268]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8a85b14f27c9dcbe0719e27d46abc1f8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: sipping <sipping@ietf.org>
Subject: [Sipping] Comments to cc-conferencing-05 (WGLC)
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: sipping-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sipping-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ed68cc91cc637fea89623888898579ba
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Alan, Orit (and SIPING): I have some comments to draft-ietf-sipping-cc-conferencing-05.txt. They are mostly nits. I hope you can take them into account. - Section 3.1 reads in the second paragraph: "A focus SHOULD support the conference package [5] and indicate so in Allow-Events header fields in requests and responses. " I guess that we also need to say that the focus should behave as a notifier. Support of the conference package is not enough. I suggest something like: "A focus SHOULD support the conference event package [5], behave as a notifier for that package, and indicate its support in the Allow-Events header fields in requests and responses." - Section 3.1 also reads in the second paragraph: "A focus MAY include information about the conference in SDP message bodies sent." It would be good, since this is a normative statement (MAY), to indicate what kind of "information about the conference" we are speaking. Just to avoid that people have creativity in the SDP with something that wasn't the original intention. Presumably we are referring to i=, e=, u= and p= lines in SDP. - Also Section 3.1 reads in the third paragraph: "A focus SHOULD support the Replaces [8] header field." At this stage, since the usage of the Replaces headers have not been introduced, it would be good to have some motivation introductory text, something like: "In order to support advanced features, where a session established between two endpoints can migrate to a centralized conference, a focus SHOULD support the Replaces [8] header field." - And more on section 3.1: I also think we need some text in this section regarding the support of the Join header and the GRUU in the focus. - Question on section 3.4: Should the conference-aware UA support the replaces, join and GRUU? I guess it should be strongly recommended to implement it (perhaps a MUST). - Section 4, Call flows, General. I think all the Supported headers should always contain: join, replaces, gruu. There are some of them that do not contain 'join', others not even gruu. - Section 4, Call flows, General. Most of the escaped URIs that in Refer-To headers are wrong. These URIs contain the "method" parameter, which is a URI parameter, not a header. Parameters are separated by semicolons ";", whereas headers are separated by question marks "?". Therefore, the following URI: Refer-To: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com?method=REFER &Refer-To=sip:3402934234%40example.com> is wrong, and should have been written as: Refer-To: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;method=REFER ?Refer-To=sip:3402934234%40example.com> In case of doubt, RFC 3261 section 25.1 contains all the answers. Suggestion: do a search for "method", and fix those which are not correct. - Section 4, Call flows, General. According to RFC 3264 Section 5, it is RECOMMENDED that the "s=" line in SDP contains a single space character (0x20) or a dash (-). The motivation is that SIP offers the Subject header field to describe the subject of a session. Therefore I recommend to follow RFC 3264 and make the "s=" line as recommended. It is up to you whether you want to include a Subject header field in the examples. - Section 4, Call flows, General: The Contact header field returned by the focus has the following structure: Contact: <sip:3402934234@example.com>;isfocus while it is feasible to make "example.com" a hostname, and resolve to the focus, I found that in typical configurations "example.com" will be a domain name that does not resolve to any particular host. The contact header MUST resolve to the focus hostname. I would find more typical that the Contact header has a clear indication that is host, for instance: Contact: <sip:3402934234@focus.example.com>;isfocus You can argue that focus.example.com could also be a domain name, not a host name, which is correct. But in typical network deployments my proposal adheres to the typical example case. So my suggestion is to replace the Contact header field of the focus to something more representative of a hostname. As a counterpart, the RTP mixer is identified by ms5.conf.example.com and Alice's Contact as client.chicago.example.com, which are both according to what I am proposing. - Section 4.2 I think the payloads in NOTIFYes F7 and F9 are exchanged somehow. Alice is already a participant of the conference, so her NOTIFY F9 can be contain a partial information. Carol's NOTIFY F7 is the first NOTIFY she receives, so it should contain a full event package. However, F7 contains a <conference-state> with version="0" and state="full", when it should be version="1" (or other number) and state="partial". F9 contains the correct version="0", but the state="partial", when it should be "full". - Section 4.2, Changing User Agents within a Conference This is an interested case, but certainly there is nothing peculiar to the conferencing. In other words, this will be applicable to the one-to-one session. So if there is something remarkable when we apply this case to the conferencing framework, please explain. Otherwise, I don't know what is the value of this use case. - Section 4.7, flow F1. What is the 'conf' tag doing in a Supported header? - Section 4.10, Bringing a Point-to-Point Session into a Conference The second paragraph reads: "Alice then sends a REFER to the focus and includes an escaped Replaces header field in the Refer-To header field. " This could be clarified by adding: "Alice then sends a REFER request to the focus to send an INVITE request ot the other participant. Alice includes an escaped Replaces header field in the URI included in the Refer-To header field. " I am not sure if this is clearer, but I guess you get the point. - Section 4.10 In Figure 10 the 200 OK F2 misses the isfocus parameter, so it does the INVITE F8. I think these are important to highlight, otherwise there won't be subscriptions. Also this figure misses a SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY between Alice and the Focus, right after the ACK F3. Without this SUBSCRIBE, the NOTIFY F15 does not exist. - Section 4.11 s/<sip:/<sip: - Section 4.12: In Figure 12 the arrow of message F4 is reversed. - Section 4.13, Flow F2: This is a 200 OK response for an OPTIONS request. So the SDP should be in conformance with RFC 3264 section 9. Specifically the port numbers in the "m=" lines should be set to 0. Also in this SDP, I noticed that the "m=audio" line contains a codec of type 1, but this type is "reserved" in RFC 3551, so I would suggest to delete it. - Section 4.13. Add references to the relevant RFCs in: "Supported. The support of extensions such as replaces, join, and gruu." "Contact. The presence of the "isfocus" feature parameter in the Contact header indicates that the URI is a conference URI and that the UA is a focus." - Section 5. If this is an appendix, it should be placed towards the end of the document, after the Acknowledgments and before the References section. - Section 14 needs a few updates Reference [1] is never used, but it should. I guess you need to add somewhere the typical terminology explanation "MUST", "SHOULD", etc. and refer to RFC 2119. Reference [5] is now -06 Reference [6] is now RFC 3911 Reference [7] is now RFC 3840 Reference [12] seems to be expired, so you should delete this reference and delete the link to it. Reference [16] is never used, so you can delete it. Reference [17] is now -03 Reference [18] seems to be expired, but I assume this has been an error. Best regards, Miguel -- Miguel A. Garcia tel:+358-50-4804586 Nokia Research Center Helsinki, Finland _______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP
- [Sipping] Comments to cc-conferencing-05 (WGLC) Miguel Garcia
- [Sipping] RE: Comments to cc-conferencing-05 (WGL… Johnston, Alan
- [Sipping] Re: Comments to cc-conferencing-05 (WGL… Miguel Garcia