Subject: [Sipping] WGLC of draft-ietf-sipping-service-examples-10.txt

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 20:37:40 +0300

Folks,

we would like to working group last call (WGLC) the following draft:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-service-examples-10.txt

as you have probably noticed if you clicked on the link above, this is a 
very long draft. Therefore, we would like to get at least ten volunteers 
to review it. We will assign a couple of sections to each reviewer.

If you are interested and willing to review this draft, please send an 
email to the SIPPING chairs.

The email below should be considered as a WGLC comment:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg10886.html

This is the output of the idnits tool:

idnits 1.96

tmp/draft-ietf-sipping-service-examples-10.txt:

   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:

     Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate...

     the boilerplate looks good.

   * There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one
     being 1 character in excess of 72.

   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
     Nothing found here (but these checks do not cover all of
     1id-guidelines.txt yet).

   Miscellaneous warnings:
   - Line 1028 has weird spacing: '... /* Bob  place...'
   - Line 1404 has weird spacing: '... /* Bob  takes...'
   - Line 1732 has weird spacing: '... /* Bob  place...'
   - Line 2459 has weird spacing: '...and Bob  have ...'
   - Line 2597 has weird spacing: '... /* Bob  puts ...'
   - (4 more instances...)

   Experimental warnings:
   - Unused Reference: [18] is defined on line 7860, but not referenced
   - Unused Reference: [13] is defined on line 7839, but not referenced
   - Unused Reference: [14] is defined on line 7842, but not referenced
   - Unused Reference: [1] is defined on line 7795, but not referenced

This WGLC will end on July 1st, 2006 (a long draft needs a long WGLC).

Thanks,

Gonzalo
SIPPING co-chair

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

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 14:21:31 +0300

Folks,

so far, five people have volunteered to review this draft. Additionally,
we have pro actively contacted five extra reviewers asking them if they
are willing to help (we are currently waiting for their answers). If you
want to help with this review, now it would be a great time to let the
chairs know.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> as you have probably noticed if you clicked on the link above, this
> is a very long draft. Therefore, we would like to get at least ten
> volunteers to review it. We will assign a couple of sections to each
> reviewer.
> 
> If you are interested and willing to review this draft, please send
> an email to the SIPPING chairs.
> 
> * There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest
> one being 1 character in excess of 72.
> 
> Checking nits according to
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: Nothing found here (but
> these checks do not cover all of 1id-guidelines.txt yet).
> 
> Miscellaneous warnings: - Line 1028 has weird spacing: '... /* Bob
> place...' - Line 1404 has weird spacing: '... /* Bob  takes...' -
> Line 1732 has weird spacing: '... /* Bob  place...' - Line 2459 has
> weird spacing: '...and Bob  have ...' - Line 2597 has weird spacing:
> '... /* Bob  puts ...' - (4 more instances...)
> 
> Experimental warnings: - Unused Reference: [18] is defined on line
> 7860, but not referenced - Unused Reference: [13] is defined on line
> 7839, but not referenced - Unused Reference: [14] is defined on line
> 7842, but not referenced - Unused Reference: [1] is defined on line
> 7795, but not referenced
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gonzalo SIPPING co-chair

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 00:14:39 -0700

I spend a few minutes looking at two flows that caught my fancy

In section 2.17

Say F1 had forked and no dialog had been formed with Alice. When the  
INVITE with replaces happens in F7, it has the to-tag. Will Alice be  
able to correctly match this and do the right thing? Does this new  
invite form both a new dialog and the old dialog of the F1  
transaction? It was not clear to me if the procedures defined in 3891  
would cause the right thing to happen.

In section 2.18

Imagine Bob has a traditional sort of phone with a handset that goes  
on and off hook. Now imagine that Bob was talking to Carol when Alice  
phoned. Carol hangs up on Bob. I think Bob's phone sends the notify  
in F8  - perhaps I am confused here. Note that Bob has not hung up  
yet. Alice sends the invite to Bob in F10. What happens now. I  
imagine that the Bob's phone returns that it is still busy. Having it  
start ringing would be really weird - what would the human factors of  
the UI be. Would you hang up before you answered it?