Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-sip-multiple-refer-02.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:58:00 +0100

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-sip-multiple-refer-02.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2007-11-24
IETF LC End Date: 2007-12-10
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Almost Ready

Comments: the comments are editorial, i.e., they enter in the kind of
things which can be handled by the RFC Editor:
 - 2 page 3: according to the Introduction the REFER-recipient should
  be a server, not a user agent, i.e., either I've misunderstood the
  Introduction or there is a typo.
 - 5 page 4: NOTIFY requests -> messages (even they are requests (cf RFC 3261)
  in the common language it seems a bit strange to name them requests)
 - 6 page 5: I can understand this (punctuation issue?):
   As described in the Framework and Security Considerations for SIP
   URI-List Services [I-D.ietf-sipping-uri-services], specifications of
   individual URI-list services, need to specify a default format for
   'recipient-list' bodies used within the particular service.
 - 6 page 6: XML Formats -> Format?
 - 8 page 8: the actual list of recipients -> targets?
 - 10 page 11: add "document" at the end of the first line as the subject
  of "discusses"
 - 10 page 11: an URI-list -> a URI-list

Regards

[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:59:17 +0200

Hi Francis, thanks for your comments. See some inline answers:

>   Introduction or there is a typo.

First background information. In SIP most of the "endpoints" are called
User Agents. When they send a request or receive a response they act as
a User Agent Client; when they receive a request or send a response they
act as a User Agent Server.

So, the definition is technically correct. The term "server" in the
introduction really means "A box in the network" and it is not connected
to the term "User Agent Server".

The current version of the draft assumes that these two concepts are 
know by the reader, but it is not obvious for readers who aren't 
familiar with SIP, so, we should try to clarify them.

>   in the common language it seems a bit strange to name them requests)

In SIP a message can either be a request or response. NOTIFY is a 
request not a response. So, the text is technically correct.

>    'recipient-list' bodies used within the particular service.

I think there is an extra comma. The text should read...

     As described in the Framework and Security Considerations for SIP
     URI-List Services [I-D.ietf-sipping-uri-services], specifications of
     individual URI-list services need to specify a default format for
     'recipient-list' bodies used within the particular service.

>  - 6 page 6: XML Formats -> Format?

No, the text is correct, it is the title of RFC 4826: "XML Formats for 
for Representing Resource Lists"

>  - 8 page 8: the actual list of recipients -> targets?

yes, we'll fix it

>  - 10 page 11: add "document" at the end of the first line as the subject

yes, we'll fix it.

>  - 10 page 11: an URI-list -> a URI-list

Yes, we'll fix it.

> Regards

Thanks for the review.

/Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
Nokia Siemens Networks     Espoo, Finland

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:09:21 +0100

=> yes, you should not lose the reader in the introduction.
In general you have to introduce terms with a different meaning than
the common one.

   
=> this is the same problem: in the general meaning a notification is
not a request, so a neutral term is IMHO better.

Thanks