Re: [Sipping] RAI Review: draft-ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements-01.txt
Sriram Parameswar <Sriram.Parameswar@microsoft.com> Fri, 19 September 2008 07:51 UTC
Return-Path: <sipping-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: sipping-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sipping-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279BE3A6A1C; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E943A6A1C; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.291
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.291 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.307, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bdo+wqwuoCrx; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.exchange.microsoft.com (mail7.exchange.microsoft.com [131.107.1.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 318A43A69DA; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from df-bhd-02.exchange.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.71.155) by DF-GWY-07.exchange.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.87.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.291.1; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:52:20 -0700
Received: from DF-GRTDANE-MSG.exchange.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.62.10]) by df-bhd-02.exchange.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.155]) with mapi; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:52:20 -0700
From: Sriram Parameswar <Sriram.Parameswar@microsoft.com>
To: Hisham Khartabil <hisham.khartabil@gmail.com>, "rai@ietf.org" <rai@ietf.org>, "sipping@ietf.org" <sipping@ietf.org>, "avshalom@il.ibm.com" <avshalom@il.ibm.com>, "aoki@aol.net" <aoki@aol.net>, "vs2140@cs.columbia.edu" <vs2140@cs.columbia.edu>, "hgs+ecrit@cs.columbia.edu" <hgs+ecrit@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:51:50 -0700
Thread-Topic: RAI Review: draft-ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements-01.txt
Thread-Index: AckZO+avXEI/wdUwSN61rtTa/wqPEQA8KKsw
Message-ID: <C916C5C17067EA4A93577D163338D13701629DE94B37@DF-GRTDANE-MSG.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <66cd252f0809172008l43df3532p64be62c8550a1f98@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <66cd252f0809172008l43df3532p64be62c8550a1f98@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Sipping] RAI Review: draft-ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements-01.txt
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/sipping>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0903848397=="
Sender: sipping-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sipping-bounces@ietf.org
Hisham, Thank you for taking the time to review the document. I will work with the co-authors to make the necessary edits and submit at the earliest. Regards, Sriram Parameswar adCenter From: Hisham Khartabil [mailto:hisham.khartabil@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 8:09 PM To: rai@ietf.org; sipping@ietf.org; avshalom@il.ibm.com; Sriram Parameswar; aoki@aol.net; vs2140@cs.columbia.edu; hgs+ecrit@cs.columbia.edu Subject: RAI Review: draft-ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements-01.txt I have been tasked to review draft-ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements-01.txt. Here are my comments: - The introduction fails to explain what interdomain scaling is. It also fails to explain the problem statement in detail. More text is required. - Req-001 includes as a last sentence "No changes may be required of existing servers to interoperate". Firsly, this should be seperated into a new requirment. Secondly, I don't fully understand this requirement. Is it a MAY NOT or SHOULD NOT? My opinion is that it is not feasible to require that no modifications are to be made to existing servers and expect them to work with the solution. There may be changes needed at the server side. - Req-002 should also be split into 2, one about functionality and the other about security. While the former can have a SHOULD NOT strength, I believe that latter should be a MUST NOT. NIT - Section 3. "In this sections lists" should be "This section lists". Regards, Hisham
_______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www.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] RAI Review: draft-ietf-sipping-presence… Hisham Khartabil
- Re: [Sipping] RAI Review: draft-ietf-sipping-pres… Sriram Parameswar