Comments inline.
Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> wrote on 04/02/2010 05:58:37 PM: > RE: Gen Art LC review of: draft-ietf-sipcore-199-02 - Avshalom's comments > > Christer Holmberg > > to: > > Avshalom Houri, General Area Review Team , [email protected] > > 04/02/2010 05:58 PM > > Cc: > > "'Adam Roach'", Gonzalo Camarillo , Robert Sparks > > > Hi, > > Below are my replies to Avshalom's comments. > > >Minor issues: > > > >11. Security section > >Seems too short for this type of proposal. May need to reference > security sections in relevant other RFCs. > > [Christer] I will add the references to the security section. As far > as the content of the section is concerned, I am not really sure > what else I could add. But, I will think about it. > > ------------- > > >Nits/editorial comments: > > > >Section 3: Requirements > >A single requirement is listed without any wording around it. A bit > of explanantion may help. > > [Christer] Based on other comments, I have suggested to remove the > whole section, because I don't know if it belongs to the spec. OK > > ------------- > > >Section 4.1 Examples of resource types > >Some benefits from resourc types are listed and then there are > several paragraphs whose context is not very clear. > > [Christer] I will double check the text, but I would be happy if you > could point to some specific text which you think is unclear :) There is an enumerated list of "Examples which benefit from resource-release are:" After that there are some paragraphs. I am not sure what is the context of these paragraphs. Are these more benefits? > > Based on Cullen's comments, I will at least take a second look on > the sentence related to latching. > > ------------- > > > Line 380: > > the 199 response unreliable, or include an SDP offer with no m- lines > > -> the 199 response unreliably, or include an SDP offer with > no m- lines > > [Christer] I'll fix that. > > ------------- > > > Line 381: > > in the reliable 199 response. > > -> in a reliable 199 response. > > [Christer] I'll fix that. > > ------------- > > > Line 384: > > is only used for information purpose, the UAS SHOULD send it > > -> is only used for information purposes, the UAS SHOULD send it > > (not sure if it should be fixed, current wording not fluent either) > > [Christer] I suggest: > > "Since the 199 provisional response is used only for information > purpose a UAS SHOULD, when sending the > response, send it unreliably even if the 100rel option tag [RFC3262] > is present in the > Require header of the associated request." > Reads good. > Regards, > > Christer > >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
