Subject: [Gen-art] gen-art review of draft-ietf-sip-sips-08.txt

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:58:50 -0700

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 ).

Document: draft-ietf-sip-sips-08.txt
Reviewer:         Scott Brim
Review Date:      25 Sep 2008
IETF LC End Date: 02 Oct 2008

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
RFC. 

Comments:

I'm not an expert, and I didn't have time to thoroughly cross-check
all the pieces of this draft (there are a LOT of overlaps of
information in different parts of the draft), but at the level of
depth I got to, it's very good.  Here are a few small suggestions in
case there is another version:

   Because registering with a SIPS Contact header field implies a
   binding of both a SIPS Contact and a corresponding SIP Contact to
   the AOR, a UA MUST NOT include both the SIPS and the SIP version of
   the same Contact header field in a REGISTER request; the UA MUST
   only use the SIPS version in this case.  Similarly, a UA SHOULD NOT
   register both a SIP Contact header field and a SIPS Contact header
   field in separate registrations as the SIP Contact header field
   would be superfluous.  If it does, the second registration replaces
   the first one (e.g., a UA could register first with a SIP Contact
   header field - meaning it does not support SIPS- and later register
   with a SIPS Contact header field (meaning it now supports SIPS).

Might want to clarify that a second registration with a SIP Contact
header field removes the SIPS registration.

   To emphasise what is already defined in [RFC3261], UASa MUST NOT
   use the "transport=tls" parameter.

typo "UASa" (unless it's mine)

   A registrar MUST only accept a binding to a SIPS Contact header
   field

"MUST only" ... the "only" isn't very visible.  You might capitalize
ONLY, or change the sense of the sentence to make this a MUST NOT or a
MUST.

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

---

From: "Francois Audet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:15:17 -0500

Thanks. 

See below. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Brim [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:59
> To: [email-masked]; Cullen Jennings; 
> [email-masked]; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
> Subject: gen-art review of draft-ietf-sip-sips-08.txt
> 
> 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 ).
> 
> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed 
> Standard RFC. 
> 
> Comments:
> 
> I'm not an expert, and I didn't have time to thoroughly 
> cross-check all the pieces of this draft (there are a LOT of 
> overlaps of information in different parts of the draft), but 
> at the level of depth I got to, it's very good.  Here are a 
> few small suggestions in case there is another version:

The overlap is caused by our very strict rules on having seperate
sections for UAC, UAS, Proxy, etc., and having

> Might want to clarify that a second registration with a SIP 
> Contact header field removes the SIPS registration.

OK, I can add the following sentence at the end of the paragraph:
	Similarly, if a UA registers first with a SIPS Contact header field and 
	later registers with a SIP Contact header field, that SIP Contact header 
	field replaces the SIPS Contact header field.

> typo "UASa" (unless it's mine)

Correct, I will fix the typo.

> "MUST only" ... the "only" isn't very visible.  You might 
> capitalize ONLY, or change the sense of the sentence to make 
> this a MUST NOT or a MUST.

Actually, "MUST ONLY" is not defined in RFC 2119 so we can't really say
this, but it doesn't matter anyway since the english is not right. It 
should be worded as follows:

	A registrar MUST accept a binding to a SIPS Contact header field
	only if all the appropriate [...]

I will fix.

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:51:36 -0700

Thanks.  Great.

Scott