RE: [Sipping] WGLC Review: draft-ietf-sipping-capacity-attribute-01.txt

Hi,

What is the reason for not considering IPSEC tunnels in the text? DTLS
is still open issue. So better open-ended text can be phrased like

"... was sent over a secured channel provided by the underlying layers
e.g.
TLS, IPSEC ...."

How long we want to carry S/MIME with it's deploy ability issues. If
still we want to use S/MIME atleast known issues with it should be
listed similar to 3261. Or reference to section of 3261 should be given.

IMHO, SIP message means REQUEST and RESPONSE both. So the text should be
well aligned like ".... SIP request unless the SIP request ..." or with
the "message" word. 

Thx
Samir

> 
> - Section 8, 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence. "was" -> "is"
> OLD:
>    Eavesdroppers are able to watch URI-lists contained in SIP
>    requests unless the SIP message was sent over a secured channel
with
>    Transport Layer Security (TLS) [3] or unless the URI-list body
itself
>    is encrypted with S/MIME [8].
> NEW:
>    Eavesdroppers are able to watch URI-lists contained in SIP
>    requests unless the SIP message is sent over a secured channel with
>    Transport Layer Security (TLS) [3] or unless the URI-list body
itself
>    is encrypted with S/MIME [8].
> 

_______________________________________________
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