Subject: [sipcore] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-07.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:16:53 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Session Initiation Protocol Core Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) History-Info Header Call Flow Examples
	Author(s)       : Mary Barnes
                          Francois Audet
                          Shida Schubert
                          Hans Erik van Elburg
                          Christer Holmberg
	Filename        : draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-07.txt
	Pages           : 47
	Date            : 2013-10-21

Abstract:
   This document describes use cases and documents call flows which
   require the History-Info header field to capture the Request-URIs as
   a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Request is retargeted.  The use
   cases are described along with the corresponding call flow diagrams
   and messaging details.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-07

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-07

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:52:09 -0400

Authors,

I note that there is a significantly enhanced example in section 3.2.
Did you get a thorough review of this from some competent people?

I don't trust myself to do a thorough job. But without looking too hard 
I can see some problems. Two new messages have been inserted in the 
middle. That means the old F4,F5,F6 have been renumbered F6,F7,F8. But 
those changes aren't reflected in the message detail.

	Thanks,
	Paul (as co-chair & shepherd)

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:01:05 -0500

We made this changed based upon feedback from Stephen Farrell during IESG
review (of 4244bis although his comment was explicitly about the call flow
document) that the example didn't show anything was privacy protected.  You
should have seen his comments and my response, since you copied on the
email threads.

Note, that a variation of this flow was originally taken from RFC 4244 and
modified.  It was simplified and we lost the idea that was in the flow in
RFC 4244 that there would some information that wasn't visible in the
response.   For the flow in the -06 version there was nothing that wasn't
revealed in other messages.  So, we updated the example to be closer to the
intent of RFC 4244.  The authors reviewed, but obviously, since we hadn't
submitted the revision no one else has *yet* had the chance to review. We
had planned to send a note to the WG mailing list about this change as we
clearly recognized it was beyond the scope of nit fixes based on an IESG
review.

So, if others can also review.   You are correct that we failed to update
the message numbers in the details, but more importantly we need feedback
on the header details. Again, the authors have double-checked, but we won't
ask the AD to do anything further with this doc until we have ensured we
have addressed the other IESG review comments, as well.

Thanks,
Mary.

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I don't trust myself to do a thorough job. But without looking too hard I
> can see some problems. Two new messages have been inserted in the middle.
> That means the old F4,F5,F6 have been renumbered F6,F7,F8. But those
> changes aren't reflected in the message detail.
>
>         Thanks,