Subject: [sipcore] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 19:53:46 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for this document.  I have only some editorial comments:

— Section 1 —

Here and in other sections you use “As such,” several times and always in a way
that seems quite odd.  I suggest removing it (or maybe sometimes replacing it
with “therefore” or “thus”).

   Some call blocking services may return responses such as 604

There needs to be a hyphen in “call-blocking”.

   However,
   other network elements might also interpret this to mean the user
   truly does not exist and might result in the user not being able to
   receive calls from anyone, even if wanted.

The “and” is wrong because the things it conjoins aren’t parallel.  Change
“exist and” to “exist, which” to fix that.  I would also say, “even if the
calls are wanted,” to make that clearer.

   Another value of the 607 rejection is presuming the proxy forwards
   the response code to the User Agent Client (UAC), the calling UAC or
   intervening proxies will also learn the user is not interested in
   receiving calls from that sender.

I found that odd and hard to understand until I realized that there’s a comma
missing before “presuming”.  But I think a better fix is to change “presuming”
to “that if”.

   downstream from the intermediary might interpret the 607 as coming
   from a user (human) that has marked the call as unwanted

We customarily refer to a human as “who”, rather than “that”.

   Integrity protecting the jCard with a cryptographic signature

Hyphenate “integrity-protecting”.

— Section 3 —

   For clarity, this section uses the term 'intermediary'

I don’t understand why the term adds clarity.  Whyso?

   the user's UAS (colloquially, but not
   necessarily, their phone).

I don’t thunk you mean “colloquially” here.  Maybe “commonly” or “usually”?

— Section 3.4 —

   life is good as the UAC will receive

You need a comma after “good”.

— Section 6 —

   remediation for this is for devices that insert a sip.608 feature
   capability only transmit media to what is highly likely to be the

Either change “is for” to “is that” or insert “to” before “only”.

   media in response to a STIR [RFC8224]-signed INVITE

It seems really weird to have a citation in the middle of the hyphenated
compound “STIR-signed”.  Given that you cite “STIR [RFC8224]” in the previous
paragraph, I would just remove the citation here.

   Presumably if the target did not request
   the media, the check will fail.

Why “presumably”?  Is the statement true or not?  (If the word stays, it needs
a comma after it.)