Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Call Control - Transfer
draft-ietf-sipping-cc-transfer-12

[Ballot discuss]
Two things I want to talk about for the AIB in section 8 - they may be fine in the draft but I'm not sure.

1) It seems to me that having the multipart/signed inside the multipart/mixed is wrong because there are no other bodies in the mixed. It should just be a multipart/signed

2) I seem to recall checking the S/MIME signature long ago but I can't get it to parse any more. I might be extracting the binary representation in the wrong way. How are you doing this and I will try to duplicate.

[Ballot discuss]
Two things I want to talk about for the AIB in section 8 - they may be fine in the draft but I'm not sure.

1) It seems to me that having the multipart/signed inside the multipart/mixed is wrong because there are no other bodies in the mixed. It should just be a multipart/signed

2) I seem to recall checking the S/MIME signature long ago but I can't get it to parse any more. I might be extracting the binary representation in the wrong way. How are you doing this and I will try to duplicate.

Just testing tool.

Thanks, Cullen

[Ballot comment]
I support Cullen's discuss about multipart wrapping.  While a single-part
multipart/mixed is legal MIME and in theory equivalent to moving the
inner part up a level; in practice the extra wrapper tends to confound
processing agents and UIs.

Because both cases are MIME compliant, this falls under the "be liberal
in what you accept, conservative in what you send" principle.  So it's
bad practice to misbehave when receiving a single-part multipart/mixed,
but it's also bad practice to send it in the first place.  While a "bad
sending practice" example may be useful in specs to help receivers get
more robust, it needs to be identified as a bad practice.

[Ballot discuss]
Two things I want to talk about for the AIB in section 8 - they may be fine in the draft but I'm not sure.

1) It seems to me that having the multipart/signed inside the multipart/mixed is wrong because there are no other bodies in the mixed. It should just be a multipart/signed

2) I seem to recall checking the S/MIME signature long ago but I can't get it to parse any more. I might be extracting the binary representation in the wrong way. How are you doing this and I will try to duplicate.

Thanks, Cullen

[Ballot comment]
Typo at the end of section 11.1:
  >
  > If the gateway supports more than one truck group,
  >
  s/truck/trunk/

[Ballot discuss]
Brian Carpenter provided a Gen-ART Review on 6-Oct-2008, and I have
  not seen a response.  Please respond.  I'm especially concerned about
  this comment:
  > ... I found it hard in sections 5 through 11 to figure out what was
  > normative and what was illustrative. Does that "can be" imply that
  > there may be another method? I found no MUSTs, two SHOULDs, one
  > NOT RECOMMENDED, and one MAY. There are some lower case "shoulds"
  > - are they normative?  Are the call flows normative? If so, I think
  > this should be stated explicitly in section 5.

[Ballot comment]
Section 5
s/he Transferee had initiated/the Transferee had initiated/

Section 7.2
s/different that in current/different than in current/

Section 7.5, Figure 9
I believe the Invite associated with dialog4 should be dialog3

Section 7.5, Figure 10
I was confused by the messages associated with dialogs 3 and 4.
I thought the final BYE/200 OK should be associated with dialog4
rather than dialog3.  It looks like dialog3 never terminates; is
a message missing?

Section 7.6
s/to a race conditions/to race conditions/
s/In this, case the call flow/In this case, the call flow/

Section 9, Figure 16
The figure omits dialog numbers.

PROTO Write-up

> 1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
> Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
> to forward to the IESG for publication?
>
>The SIPPING WG chairs have reviewed the document and believe it is
>ready for publication. Gonzalo Camarillo is its PROTO shepherd.
>
> 1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
> and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the
> depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
>
>The draft has been thoroughly reviewed by a number of SIPPING members.
>
> 1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
> particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
> complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?
>
>We do not have any particular concern in that respect.
>
> 1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
> you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For
> example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
> document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
> it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
> and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
> document, detail those concerns in the write-up.
>
>We feel comfortable with the document.
>
> 1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
> others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
> agree with it?
>
>There is strong consensus within the WG that call transfer is a very
>important service and that this is the best way to implement such a service.
>
> 1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
> separate email to the Responsible Area Director.
>
>Nobody has done anything to stop this document.
>
> 1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
> ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).
>
>Yes, it does.
>
> 1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?
> Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
> also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
> (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
> normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
> such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)
>
>All the normative references are RFCs. xxx GRUU is still a draft.
>
> 1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
> announcement includes a write-up section with the following
> sections:
>
> * Technical Summary
>
> This document describes providing Call Transfer capabilities in the
> Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). SIP extensions such as REFER and
> Replaces are used to provide a number of transfer services including
> blind transfer, consultative transfer, and attended transfer. This
> work is part of the SIP multiparty call control framework.
>
> * Working Group Summary
>
>This draft progressed slowly because it uses mechanisms defined in other
>documents. The document had to wait until those mechanisms were ready.
>Otherwise, folks in the WG agreed with the direction of the draft from
>the beginning.
>
> * Protocol Quality
>
>Jon Peterson is the Responsible Area Director. The WG chair shepherd
>for the document is Gonzalo Camarillo.
>