Telechat Review of draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc3265bis-
|Requested rev.||no specific revision (document currently at 09)|
|Team||General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)|
|Draft last updated||2012-04-24|
Genart Last Call review of -?? by Alexey Melnikov
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Alexey Melnikov
Secdir Telechat review of -?? by Tero Kivinen
Hi Adam, Sorry I've missed your reply earlier. On 11/04/2012 23:03, Adam Roach wrote: On 4/10/12 5:46 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: [...] Also, it might be good to reference RFC 3986 for URIs here. Given that SIP uses URIs everywhere, I'm not sure what benefit is derived by referencing the URI syntax draft here. Ok. 4.4.4. Allow-Events header field usage The "Allow-Events" header field does not include a list of the etvent typo: event I don't find "etvent" in the document: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc3265bis-07#section-4.4.4 Is it possible you accidentally edited a local copy of the file prior to your review? It is possible. Not a big deal either way. I also don't find this typo in the source (which would surprise me in any case, as I made sure to run the -07 version through a spell checker). template packages supported by an implementation. If a subscriber wishes to determine which event template packages are supported by a notifier, it can probe for such support by attempting to subscribe to the event template packages it wishes to use. Can you clarify how such request would look like? An example would be nice. I'm not sure what you're asking for here. It would be a SUBSCRIBE message, with an "Event" header field set to name the template you want to use. Basically it just says "we don't negotiate templates -- just try it and see if it fails." So my understanding is that it is not possible to just request a template event (it needs to be combined with something else)? I think some explanation and/or examples of this would be good, I don't think this is very clear in the document. [...] 7.2. Reason Codes This document further defines "reason" codes for use in the "Subscription-State" header field (see Section 4.1.3). Following the policies outlined in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226], new reason codes require a Standards Action. Minor: This would prevent registration of new Reason Codes in an Experimental RFC (for example). I would like to double check that that is intentional. It never came up explicitly during working group discussions, to my memory. Registrations with the IANA include the reason code being registered and a reference to a published document which describes the event package. Insertion of such values takes place as part of the RFC publication process or as the result of inter-SDO liaison activity. I don't think Standards Action allows for "inter-SDO liaison activity", unless such documents from other SDOs are published as Standard Track RFCs. So I find your text confusing: either your registration procedure should also allow for direct IESG approvals (to allow registrations from other SDOs with no RFCs), or you should remove "as the result of inter-SDO liaison activity". You're right. I suspect we really intended to make this registrable by external SDOs, meaning we probably really wanted Specification Required. I'm leaving this as-is for now, and will need to coordinate with our AD to iron out where to go with this. Ok, I will tell Russ that these 2 issues are still pending resolution. 8.4. Augmented BNF Definitions event-type = event-package *( "." event-template ) Minor: Does this mean that multiple template packages can be applied? Is there any ordering for them? Yes, and yes. How would "foo.A.B" differ from "foo.B.A"? Right now, we have only one template defined -- but imagine that we did define a new "list" template event package (we almost did this some years ago) which is used to aggregate several resources into a single subscription. "Event: presence.winfo.list" would subscribe to the aggregation of several watcher-info documents into a single list. "Event: presence.list.winfo" would subscribe to the watcher-info state of the indicated list. Ok, so the ordering is important. Is this documented anywhere? Nit: id-nits complains: -- Duplicate reference: RFC4660, mentioned in 'RFC4660', was also mentioned in 'RFC 4660'. "[RFC 4660]" reference is used in section 7.2. id-nits is wrong. It incorrectly thinks that the paragraph starting with [RFC4660] on page 40 is trying to define a reference. I thought it was a reference, but this is not a big deal.