Subject: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-resource-priority-10 comments

From: "Piers O'Hanlon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:13:11 +0100

Henning and James,

I realise the draft has gone to the IESG but I had a few comments that I 
would be obliged if you could address (plus some minor grammatical notes):

In Section 4.5.1"Preemption"; (last paragraph):
Just a small point of consistency: It seems unnecessary to refer the 
reader to section 4.7.2 when the same isn't done for the following 
section? (Unless you do the same for both sections).

In Section 4.5.2 "Priority Queuing"; (At the end of the first paragraph):

"  If the per-priority-value queue for a 
   newly arriving request is full, the request is rejected immediately.
   In addition, a priority queueing policy MAY impose a waiting time
   limit for each priority class, where requests that exceed a specified
   waiting time are ejected from the queue and a failure response is
   returned to the requestor."

Presumably "ejected" is intended to be equivalent to (or replaced by) 
"rejected"? It might be useful to elucidate the the meaning (error 
status) of 'reject' in its various forms in the draft - or refer the 
reader to the relevant error section. (for example the first [in the 
above paragraph] 'rejection' code would be something like a 488, and the 
second may be 408?)

Minor grammatical issues:

The word "queuing" has been misspelt as "queueing" in a number of places 
in the draft.

Section 4.1:
"    option tag in a 'Require' header field is describe in Section 4.3 
<http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/rfcmarkup.cgi?url=http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sip/draft-ietf-sip-resource-priority/draft-ietf-sip-resource-priority-10.txt#section-4.3>."
describe->described

Section 11.1:
Para1: "In SIP end system such as IP phones"
system->systems
Para3: "This authentication and authorization requirements extends to users"
This->These, extends->extend

Thanks,

Piers O'Hanlon

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:18:45 -0500

Piers

Thanks for the review.

I agree with everything you suggest except 2 items below. Of those 2, one I 
believe is covered already, and the other has two choices for a simple 
solution.

more comments in-line below

>section? (Unless you do the same for both sections).

Would you prefer referring both sections (4.5.1 and 4.5.2) to 4.7.2
*or*
referring 4.5.1 to 4.7.2.1 *and* 4.5.2 to 4.7.2.2?

Either way, I agree there needs to be consistency here in the doc.

>"  If the per-priority-value queue for a   newly arriving request is full, 
>the request is rejected immediately.
>"rejected"?

of course

>  It might be useful to elucidate the the meaning (error status) of 
> 'reject' in its various forms in the draft

see section 4.6.6 for this

>  - or refer the reader to the relevant error section. (for example the 
> first [in the above paragraph] 'rejection' code would be something like a 
> 488, and the second may be 408?)

Doesn't 4.6.6 doesn't address this already, too?

>The word "queuing" has been misspelt as "queueing" in a number of places 

I would prefer this spelling too - I'll talk to my co-author about this.

><http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/rfcmarkup.cgi?url=http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sip/draft-ietf-sip-resource-priority/draft-ietf-sip-resource-priority-10.txt#section-4.3>."

of course

>Para1: "In SIP end system such as IP phones"

of course

>This->These, extends->extend

these too

>Piers O'Hanlon

cheers,
James

                                 *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented.

---

From: "Piers O'Hanlon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 18:26:24 +0100

James,

Thanks for getting back to me - some responses below.

> referring 4.5.1 to 4.7.2.1 *and* 4.5.2 to 4.7.2.2?
The latter option sounds good - best to give too much info than too little.

>> "  If the per-priority-value queue for a   newly arriving request is 
>> full, the request is rejected immediately.
It may however save some confusion by using the same word everywhere for 
the same thing.

>>  - or refer the reader to the relevant error section. (for example 
>> the first [in the above paragraph] 'rejection' code would be 
>> something like a 488, and the second may be 408?)
>
>

I guess it addresses it in a general way - I thought it might be useful 
to just mention specific error codes when explaining each rejection as, 
for example, is done in 4.6.2, point 2. It's not always that clear as to 
which error code to use, though I guess in certain cases there may be 
different error codes used (depending on what caused the rejection)?

Cheers,

Piers.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:22:06 -0400

> The word "queuing" has been misspelt as "queueing" in a number of places 

This is a matter of taste. I tend to go by the seminal books in this field:

Leonard Kleinrock
Theory, Volume 1, Queueing Systems

or

Donald Gross
Fundamentals of Queueing Theory

Queuing is the more popular spelling according to Google, but there are 
806,000 references to queueing :-)

Henning

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:27:10 -0400

> This->These, extends->extend

I fixed these; depending on what happens, they'll get addressed either 
before it reaches the RFC editor or in AUTH48.

Thanks for catching them.

Henning

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:52:00 -0400

> The latter option sounds good - best to give too much info than too little.

Added to both sections.

> different error codes used (depending on what caused the rejection)?

This is a bit more difficult. Requests that timeout after residing in 
the queue always get a 408, which I've now noted.

Depending on the particular circumstance (UAS vs. proxy, signaling vs. 
media path overload, etc.), the rejection when first arriving at the 
queue can generate several different error codes. It don't think it 
would help to enumerate them all here, but I've added a reference to 
4.6.5 and 4.6.6.

---

From: Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 23:05:44 -0400

To say nothing of "Queues" by D.R. Cox and Wally  Smith (which consistently
uses the spelling "queueing").

Janet

---

From: "Piers O'Hanlon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:26:25 +0100

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

>
>>
>> The word "queuing" has been misspelt as "queueing" in a number of 
>> places in the draft.
>
>
True it is a bit uncertain...(The Oxford English Dictionary has both 
listed, with "queueing" first, and Merriam-webster has both spellings, 
whilst Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary lists only "queueing", 
though dictionary.com seems to only have "queuing" - So personally I 
would now say that "queueing" is probably more 'correct'). However 
keeping to a single spelling might be good in one document?

Piers.

> Queuing is the more popular spelling according to Google, but there 
> are 806,000 references to queueing :-)
>
> Henning