[Stox] review: stox-core-04

Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> Fri, 20 September 2013 09:39 UTC

Return-Path: <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FFAE21F8DDD for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 02:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.390, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iNMkQzXk31Ai for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 02:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFEEA21F8EA8 for <stox@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 02:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f9a8e000005620-7e-523c17ba3921
Received: from ESESSHC013.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 46.7C.22048.AB71C325; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:39:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se (153.88.183.16) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.328.9; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:39:06 +0200
Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD8A11024B for <stox@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:39:06 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DBA254647 for <stox@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:38:59 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from Salvatore-Loretos-MacBook-Pro.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4B8F54416 for <stox@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:38:58 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <523C17B9.2070408@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:39:05 +0300
From: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <stox@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010107040405070707030104"
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje4ucZsgg5cLjCz+72hidWD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxscLJ1gKtopXLJm+gKWB8YZQFyMnh4SAicTVZQsYIWwxiQv3 1rN1MXJxCAkcZpT4/uMLI4SznlHi679+ZgjnIqPEj73zocoOMUoc6nsHVXaaUeLyia9MIMN4 BbQlrp+/wQpiswioSmx/cAosziZgJvH84RZmEFtUIFmi6fJ9Foh6QYmTM5+A2SICwhLN59+B HSUsICsx7eBqMJtZIExixaEtUMeqSVw9twlsjpCAlkTv2U6mCYyCs5CMmoWkBcK2lbgw5zpU XF5i+9s5zBC2rsSF/1NQxBcwsq1iZM9NzMxJLzffxAgM54NbfhvsYNx0X+wQozQHi5I472a9 M4FCAumJJanZqakFqUXxRaU5qcWHGJk4OKUaGN3nrIlduqutuW+mvv7qWUEFnzQWJnCuf6pj 8GnzmVn/w27ef+7nsa31gpDiw7ct02w/sJ21n9uzzkTvwQ7hmFsMTqt83zGufqwqqbPXfs/l 7GNM0/wvTUtNMuv5ssltnsgqphduLV7//rU4/tpYrGwrcCn4vea8h5U5fxSjXqdIzJx9+tsD 431KLMUZiYZazEXFiQC/6O5YNQIAAA==
Subject: [Stox] review: stox-core-04
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list <stox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stox>, <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/stox>
List-Post: <mailto:stox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stox>, <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 09:39:17 -0000

I have reviewed the core-04 draft, and I think that is almost ready for 
the WGLC

I have one general comment
(btw I apologize in advance if this has already been discussed and I 
have overlooked or forgot it)
and it is about the fact that draft does not talk at all about the inter 
working when secure URIs are involved.
I think that at least we should say something about in the Security 
consideration.

* Editorial nits

-In section 6.2, the following sentence

    The codes listed below are limited to those defined in the core SIP
    specification [RFC3261  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261>] and in RFCs that formally update [RFC3261  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261>].

It suggests, at least to me, that in the list below are listed all the 
codes defined
in 3261 and in RFC that formally update 3261, but this is not the case.

-first paragraph section 5.1
     s/spports/supports

Cheers
Salvatore

-- 
Salvatore Loreto, PhD
www.sloreto.com