Subject: [siprec] Reviews of draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-12

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:25:07 -0500

Following up on what review is still required for this document, it seems
to me that there have been past reviews by folks that know XML well. So, I
don't think that should be a worry - it's not clear to me why Paul is
concerned about that aspect.   As was suggested, the feedback you need is
from folks that have implemented.  Of course, that's always a very good
thing, but I don't know that you need to hold-up this document for that.
 However, it's probably prudent to wait until the WG feels the call flows
are in good shape.

One suggestion I have is to include at least one reference to a description
of UML notation. Personally, I don't find that it adds any clarity to the
document, in particular since it's the text and XML schema that's
normative, but I know you all made that decision a long while back.

I have a few specific comments:
- Section 9.
-- The last sentence says "the following sections" but there's only one
section.  You could probably merge.
-- I think this section would be much more useful if it referred to the
security provided by the protocol document since that seems to be all
you're really talking about.   I would think that it would be important to
identify information in the metadata that is sensitive and might be subject
to privacy considerations.  Given the discussion when this WG was
chartered, I would think this would be important. Also, this is discussed
in the requirements document as well.  I can see that you discuss the
metadata in the protocol document.  I would think this should at least be
discussed in more detail in the metadata document.

- IANA Registrations:
--  the reference to the XML schema in the IANA section is wrong (it says
section 6 - it should be 8).  While one might think the RFC editor would
fix, I've seen a number of docs where this has been missed.

Mary.

---

From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:40:34 +0000

Inline for some of my comments-

> On 30/07/13 7:55 PM, "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>to me that there have been past reviews by folks that know XML well. So,
>I don't think that should be a worry - it's not clear to me why Paul is
>concerned about that aspect.

On the metadata draft (draft-ietf-siprec-metadata), I feel we have had
enough reviews . I believe it covers most of the discussed
Requirements/call flows that we have discussed till now. I do see a set of
new requirements that Henry an Paul have brought in. Excluding those,
metadata IMO has taken care of most of the current requirements.

I do agree it will be nice to get feedback from some one who have
implemented. We have been asking the same from almost 1+ year but have not
got much response yet. I wonder if we would need hold-up the document for
too long waiting for implementation feedback.

On the call flow draft (draft-ietf-siprec-callflow) I agree there is some
more reviews needed.

>   As was suggested, the feedback you need is from folks that have
>implemented.  Of course, that's always a very good thing, but I don't
>know that you need to hold-up this document for that.  However, it's
>probably prudent to wait until the WG feels the call
> flows are in good shape.
>
>
>One suggestion I have is to include at least one reference to a
>description of UML notation.

Sure. I will add a reference to the same in the next revision

> Personally, I don't find that it adds any clarity to the document, in
>particular since it's the text and XML schema that's normative, but I
>know you all made that
> decision a long while back.
>
>

I will correct this text

>you're really talking about.   I would think that it would be important
>to identify information in the metadata
> that is sensitive and might be subject to privacy considerations.  Given
>the discussion when this WG was chartered, I would think this would be
>important. Also, this is discussed in the requirements document as well.
>I can see that you discuss the metadata
> in the protocol document.  I would think this should at least be

I will try to come up with some text for security considerations for the
metadata portion and send to the list soon.

>fix, I've seen a number of docs where this has been missed.

Thanks for pointing this out. Will fix it in the next revision

Regards,
Ram

---

From: "Parthasarathi R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 00:20:45 +0530

Hi all,

I'm hearing the same argument of metadata implementers review for more than
1 year without having any major review comments. By Google search
(http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Who-is-using-SIPREC-4263898.S.176535181), I
noticed that the couple SIPREC products from different vendors namely ACME,
NICE, Broadsoft, HP, OrecX. In case somebody has serious technical issues in
implementing the metadata draft, it would have heard in SIPREC WG by now. I
have trouble in agree to the statement that we need to hear from
implementers for moving forward. Also, I know of the companies which will
implement SIPREC once it becomes RFC to avoid double SIPREC implementation.
IMO, the moving document to WGLC will bring the left out review comments.

SIPREC example draft was written 1 years back after the comment that
metadata draft was not very clear for implementation. Here, it is good to
have the original SIPREC logs as an example but I haven't heard any
volunteer till now. In fact, the draft has received the comments from NICE
(existing SIPREC implementers) and it was incorporated long back.
 
Thanks
Partha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 10:11 AM
> To: Mary Barnes; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [siprec] Reviews of draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-12
> 
> _______________________________________________
> siprec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec