Subject: [sipcore] Doc Shepherd review of draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme - Section 2.6

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:07:15 -0500

Hi Rifaat,

As I was going through the draft on my Doc Shepherd pass, I found some 
issues in the text that was inherited from RFC3261 (section 2.6).

Mainly the text talks about servers and clients and doesn't cover 
proxies well. The section talks about the Authorization header field but 
doesn't mention the Proxy-Authorization header field. Bullet 8 does use 
the phrase "any resulting authorization header field", which may cover 
Proxy-Authorization, but it's not explicit. I think using the terms UAC 
and UAS in this section would help, and the Proxy-Authorization header 
field should be mentioned explicitly.

I'll send the rest of my comments on the draft (mostly nits) in another 
message.

Thanks!

Jean

---

From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 14:38:46 -0400

Thanks Jean!

I submitted a new version that I believe addresses this comment.
Please, take a look and let me know what you think.

Regards,
 Rifaat