Subject: Re: [cuss] Nits on draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 17:44:37 +0300

Authors,

please go ahead fix the nits reported by Vijay below. Vijay, when the
authors revise the draft fixing those please update the PROTO write up.

Additionally, I have a few more comments on the draft.

Rephrase the first sentence of Section 4.1 so that it is clear what
"only" applies to. In the second sentence of the same section, please
rephrase "can be used" to something more explicit (and clearer).

Later in the same section the text says:

"The syntax allows any combination of individual User-to-User header
   fields or User-to-User header fields with multiple comma separated
   UUI data elements.  Multiple User-to-User header fields MAY be
   present in a request or response. "

The second sentence should appear before the first. Also, the first
sentence talks about something general in the SIP syntax, not about
something specific to the syntax defined in this document. Please,
clarify that.

Also, clarify how the following two statements interact with each other:

"UAs SHOULD ignore UUI data from packages or encoding that they do not
understand."

  "If an element supports this specification, it SHOULD include any UUI
   data included in a redirection URI.  Note that redirection can occur
   multiple times to a request."

The first sentence of Section 5 and Section 6.3 define the IANA policy
for packages. Please, choose one of the standard policies and reference
the relevant RFC:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1

The paragraph on the top of page 10 is not consistent in its use of MUST
vs. must and MAY vs. may.

Please, expand all acronyms on their first use (e.g., B2BUA, but please
check if there are others).

There are a few references missing (e.g., Replaces header and TLS, but
please check if there are others).

Please, revise the draft addressing all comments above.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

On 21/09/2012 11:05 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> Alan, James: I have requested publication for your draft.
> 
> While going through the draft, I found a couple of nits that I want to
> document.  Please attend to these along with the comments that you will
> get from the IESG review.
> 
> - S1, first paragraph: s/a priori/a-priori/
> - idnits reports the following, please fix these:
>    - There are 11 instances of too long lines in the document, the
>      longest one being 1 character in excess of 72.
>    - Unused Reference: 'ETSI' is defined on line 721, but no explicit
>      reference was found in the text
>    - Unused Reference: 'RFC3324' is defined on line 762, but no explicit
>      reference was found in the text
>    - Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
>      draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-08
> 
> That's it!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - vijay
>