From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Mon Oct 1 07:44:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CE9D1F0CCD for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 07:44:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.22 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I89r7bG3nsGb for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 07:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6441721F8894 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 07:44:40 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7f046d00000644c-f7-5069ac561127 Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 2F.D0.25676.65CA9605; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 16:44:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [131.160.36.98] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.279.1; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 16:44:38 +0200 Message-ID: <5069AC55.4030205@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 17:44:37 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "cuss@ietf.org" References: <505CC885.6030100@bell-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <505CC885.6030100@bell-labs.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW7YmswAg8dbjC1utL9gttg24wiL RcMaOQdmj77LLh5Llvxk8vhy+TNbAHMUl01Kak5mWWqRvl0CV8aR5QIFP0QrLh0zaWCcJtjF yMkhIWAisfpMNzuELSZx4d56NhBbSOAUo8ThPt8uRi4gexWjxINnS5hAErwC2hI73v9jAbFZ BFQknr3YxwhiswlYSGy5dR8sLioQLHFu4zY2iHpBiZMzn4DFRQSUJfpWd7CDDGUWaGCUOP/w EDNIQljAWOL7nvmMEJt1JLZ3vwSyOTg4BXQlns8uhDhOUuLN5Jtgc5gF9CSmXG1hhLDlJba/ ncMM0aotsfxZC8sERqFZSFbPQtIyC0nLAkbmVYzCuYmZOenlRnqpRZnJxcX5eXrFqZsYgeF8 cMtv1R2Md86JHGKU5mBREue13rrHX0ggPbEkNTs1tSC1KL6oNCe1+BAjEwenVAPjrlMiDJ8q pluav/x2SuXhTR5miweOGYe3vJ21OsrCRdnxrM6i1reLo72OfHC+8/K4gRfrr3NB3V/frY+b rOu6i+UCy/EHziJ6kwwkr+7tzPi/eNNNh7eOV9dphr7zU8k7rqpcX98jrreOszeko4nplYGH iNjVKydq31ybm6TCsPGvhk/qB013JZbijERDLeai4kQA002WWTUCAAA= Cc: "Vijay K. Gurbani" , "draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [cuss] Nits on draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:44:41 -0000 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 >