Subject: [MMUSIC] AD review: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-16

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:27:57 +0200

Hi,

I just got a publication request for the following draft:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-16

Please, find below my AD review.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-16:

Page 10: remove the indentation of the following paragraph. Indented
paragraphs are typically used to provide clarifications while this one
contains normative language:

      Note that <addrtype> and/or <connection-address> MUST NOT be
      omitted when unknown since this would violate basic syntax of SDP
      [RFC4566].  In such cases, they MUST be set to a "-".

Section 5.2.3.1 provides a "format" for the cs-correlation attribute.
However, its ABNF formal syntax is in Section 5.7. So, why does Section
5.2.3.1 also contain a syntax for the attribute... and what type of
syntax is that?

Page 14: the text says:

      To mitigate this problem implementations
      should consider only some of the rightmost digits from the E.164

Can we provide a more concrete advice (or at least some discussion) on
the number of digits to consider?

Page 15: we define how to encode a binary value in hexadecimal format
and represent it as a two-digit ASCII value. Can we point to an existing
specification that defines how to do that instead of specifying it inline?

Page 17: the text says:

      Implementations are advised to select a number of DTMF digits that
      provide enough assurance that the call is related, but on the
      other hand do not prolong the bearer setup time unnecessarily.

Can we provide a more concrete recommendation?

Page 17: Section 5.2.3.4 specifies what to do when the correlation
fails. However, that is described in general in Section 5.3.3. Why don't
we move all the statements about how to decide whether the sessions are
correlated to Section 5.3.3? Now, the following statement contradicts
what Section 5.3.3 says, for example:

   the passive side
   SHOULD treat the circuit-switched bearer as not correlated to the
   ongoing session.

The indented text right after the statement above talks about
suppressing alerting. Such a supression is applicable to any session,
not only those that are correlated using DTMF tones. So, we could also
move that discussion to Section 5.3.3.

Section 5.5: rephrase the following sentence (possibly splitting it into
more than one sentence) so that it is clearer:

      Note that this may result in the recipient of the initial Offer in
      rejecting the Offer if the recipient of the Offer is not aware of
      its own E.164 number, and thus concluding that it will not be
      possible to establish a circuit-switched bearer since neither
      party is aware of their E.164 number.