Re: [straw] WGLC: for draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Responses inline below [MB].

On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Mary,
> Thanks for the review!
> Comments/actions inline...
>
> On Nov 29, 2012, at 5:19 PM, Mary Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> General comments:
> ---------------------------
> - A fair number of references need to be added - I've identified many below.
> - The document discusses Application Servers and PBXs throughout section 3,
> but those terms aren't described until section 4, so I think at least a
> forward reference should be added (although, that kindof makes it circular,
> so maybe adding a generic definition something like the following to the
> terminology section might be useful) and/or the terminology added to section
> 1.
>
>
> OK.
>
>
> Minor comments:
> -----------------------
> - Abstract - really could use a bit more intro.  I would suggest to borrow
> some text from the introduction - maybe the first paragraph.
>
>
> You're the second person to suggest this, but I don't see it - or rather I
> don't see how to do so in a useful way without repeating the intro section,
> and really this is supposed to be an abstract not an intro - just enough
> information for someone to decide whether to read the doc or not, right?
> Does it not fulfill that goal?  If not, what exact wording should be added?

[MB] The current abstract doesn't provide the background/motivation as
to why you are even writing this document.  You are only explaining
the objective of the document.  I think you can move the first
paragraph in the intro  to the abstract - prepending it to the current
abstract and it will address my concern.  Then you can update the
first sentence in the second paragraph so there is an appropriate lead
in for the Intro simply by replacing "In practice," with "In current
SIP deployments," [/MB]
"
>
>
> - Section 1 - Terminology:
> -- Remove the reference to RFC 2119.  I don't think it's necessary.
>
>
> Done.
>
>
> -- Also, I don't think B2BUA, UAS and UAC need to be defined here.  They
> should just be expanded on the first usage.   I would just refer to the
> definitions in RFC 3261 as you have for RFC 2828.
> -- Per my comment above
>
> - Section 3, 2nd paragraph, last sentence.  What is a "one-armed 3rd party
> call control transcoder"?  There is a reference to section 3.1 of RFC 5369,
> but that doesn't use the "one-armed" terminology.  I don't think referring
> to "one-armed" adds value.  I suggest simply removing it.
>
>
> Done.
>
>
> - Section 3.2.2: Add references for SRTP Terminator and RTCP for QoS
>
> done
>
> - Section 3.2.3:  Add a reference for MSRP
>
> done
>
> - Section 4.6:  Expand P-CSCF and IBCF. Add references to 3GPP architecture
> and media plane gateway specs.
> - Section 4.7:  Expand S-CSCF.
>
>
> Can I get away with just a reference to 3gpp's website of specs?
[MB] I think specific references are more useful since the 3gpp
website is not that easy to navigate unless you are fairly familiar
with how they do their specs.  I've spent way more time than one would
think necessary pointing folks to specific 3gpp documents. [/MB]
>
> - Section 5:  I would suggest to reword something like "The security
> considerations related to the functionality described in this document are
> addressed in the relevant references."
>
>
> done.
>
>
> Nits:
> ------
> - Section 4.2:
> -- expand VCC & IVR
> -- last sentence: "Poxy-B2BUA" -> "Proxy-B2BUA"
> - Section 4.4.: Expand TDM.
>
>
> Done.
>
> -hadriel
>
>