Telechat Review of draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc3265bis-
review-ietf-sipcore-rfc3265bis-genart-telechat-melnikov-2012-04-24-00

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.