Subject: Re: [sipcore] [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-sipcore-presence-scaling-requirements-02

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:11:41 -0700

On Sep 23, 2009, Avshalom Houri wrote:

> > - It would be worth mentioning in the introduction of the document  
> what
> >    the expected result of this document should be.  Obviously, we  
> are
> >    expecting (or hoping for) an improvement in the scalability of
> >    SIP/SIMPLE, but this should be made explicit.  Also, do we have
> >    estimates of how much SIP/SIMPLE will improve?
>
> These are defined by the requirements themselves specifically in 3.3.

Right.  But it would be useful if this was explained even earlier in the
document.  How about changing the first paragraph of the introduction as
follows:

    OLD
    The document lists requirements for optimizations of the SIP/SIMPLE
    protocol.  See [I-D.ietf-simple-simple] for the list of RFCs and
    drafts that are considered as part of the SIP/SIMPLE protocol.   
These
    optimizations should reduce the load on the network and the presence
    servers in interdomain presence subscriptions.  The need for the
    requirements is based on a separate scaling analysis document
    [I-D.ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis].

    NEW
    This document identifies requirements for optimizations of the
    SIP/SIMPLE protocol, which aim at increasing the scalability of
    the SIP/SIMPLE protocol, and at reducing the load on the network and
    the presence servers in interdomain presence subscriptions.  The  
need
    for such requirements is based on the scaling analysis in
    [I-D.ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis].  See
    [I-D.ietf-simple-simple] for a list of RFCs and Internet drafts that
    are part of the SIP/SIMPLE protocol.

This might already be sufficient.

> > - The document only talks about "optimizations" to which the defined
> >    requirement should apply.  How about other types of protocol
> >    enhancements, such as functional extensions?  Wouldn't the  
> defined
> >    requirements apply to those just as well?
>
> No. Functional requirements are not in the scope of this document.

Ok.

- Christian