Subject: [Sipping] New revision of cc-framework

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:46:34 +0200

WGLC Reviewers of the cc-framework draft,

the authors have put together a new revision of the cc-framework draft. 
This revision is supposed to address all your WGLC comments. Could you 
please have a look at it and let us know if it indeed addresses your 
comments?

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-cc-framework-09.txt

You can find your reviews at:
https://softarmor.com/sipping/process/wg-review/sipping-rt.html

In any case, the authors of the draft will have to revise the draft once 
more because the current revision has a few problems with references 
that should be fixed before we request its publication.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

_______________________________________________
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: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:09:43 +0000

My comments have been dealt with as follows:

General comment. Not addressed.

Comment 1. Addressed.

Comment 2. Not addressed.

Comment 3. Not addressed.

Comment 4. Partly addressed. It appears that the term "session dialog"
has been removed, but there are still many instances of "dialog" and
"SIP dialog", apparently meaning the same thing. We should use only one
term. Since there is also the term "voice dialog" meaning something
different, it would be better never to use the term "dialog" without
qualification (e.g., "SIP dialog"), except in contexts where it is clear
such as "dialog event package".

Comment 5. Not addressed satisfactorily. It now says that for the
peer-to-peer approach "setup time is shorter (fewer messages are
required to be sent by the initiator of the action)". On what evidence
is this statement made? As far as I can see, the initiator of the action
in the example I gave in my comment sends the same number of messages in
both the P2P case and the 3PCC case (REFER request, either BYE request
or BYE response).

Comment 6. Addressed.

Comment 7. I will withdraw.

Comment 8. Addressed.

Comment 9. Addressed.

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 14 December 2007 05:47
> To: Mahendran, AC; Elwell, John; MARJOU Xavier RD-MAPS-LAN
> Cc: Alan Johnston; Mary Barnes; sipping
> Subject: New revision of cc-framework
>

---

From: "Xavier Marjou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:59:25 +0100

I confirm that the latest revision addresses my comments.

Cheers,
Xavier