Subject: [BLISS] Coments on draft-ietf-bliss-ach-analysis-05.txt

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:07:39 +0200

Hi,

a few minor comments on the following draft:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bliss-ach-analysis-05.txt

The title of the draft could already include the ACH acronym:

An Analysis of Automatic Call Handling (ACH) Implementation Issues in
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

Section 1: add a reference the first time RFC 3261 is mentioned.

Section 1: have you considered including the results of the survey in
an appendix?

Section 2: acronyms such as UA and AoR should be expanded on their
first use.

End of Section 3.4

OLD:

... with [RFC4458]

NEW:

... with RFC 4458 [RFC4458]

Section 5.3:

To be sure, does that section say that we need new response codes and
header fields are needed or that with the existing ones we have
enough?

Section 5.6: In the following open issue, who should adopt such a
framework?

   OPEN ISSUE.  The above reference to be replaced by whatever is
   adopted as work item for a framework for RESTful configuration.

Section 6 uses RFC 2119 normative language but the document has no
reference to RFC 2119.

Sections 6.3 and 6.4: what is current the status of that work?

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:41:55 +0100

Gonzalo,

Thanks for your comments. See below. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> On Behalf Of Gonzalo Camarillo
> Sent: 04 March 2010 15:08
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [BLISS] Coments on draft-ietf-bliss-ach-analysis-05.txt
> 
> Hi,
> 
[JRE] OK

> Section 1: add a reference the first time RFC 3261 is mentioned.
[JRE] There is one already, in the first line.

> Section 1: have you considered including the results of the survey in
[JRE] There is already a URL, but of course, as with any other informative reference, it is unclear whether it will continue to exist for ever. So your suggestion would seem to make sense. Does anyone have a tool for converting an HTML page or plain text to xml2rfc?

> Section 2: acronyms such as UA and AoR should be expanded on their
[JRE] OK, and I also caught B2BUA, HTTP and URI.

> ... with RFC 4458 [RFC4458]
[JRE] OK

> header fields are needed or that with the existing ones we have
[JRE] In fact section 6.2 lays down best practices for this (using existing response codes). So I propose to add to 5.3: "The following sub-sections discuss these two factors. Best practices in section 6.2 propose the use of existing response codes for the conditions identified, avoiding the need to specify new response codes."

>    adopted as work item for a framework for RESTful configuration.
[JRE] We had a draft that might have formed a basis for this, but I don't think anything was decided about where it would be progressed. This is the main reason this document is stuck. Perhaps the chairs can shed more light. Part of the issue is whether the framework should be specific to this or more general.

> Section 6 uses RFC 2119 normative language but the document has no
[JRE] Fixed.

> Sections 6.3 and 6.4: what is current the status of that work?
[JRE] For the first of these issues, see above (the need for a RESTful framework draft). The second of these issues really is stuck on that too. Although draft-roach-http-sip-subscribe is in the RFC Ed Queue, it doesn't make sense to write text on that without first having the text for the previous issue.

I will try to get out a new draft on Monday.

John