Hi Suresh, Sorry for the delay. This week I will publish a new version 09 of the draft addressing all the pending issues.
Thanks a lot. 2013/6/10 Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]>: > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-08.txt > Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan > Review Date: 2013/06/10 > IESG Telechat date: 2013/06/13 > > Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed > Standard, but has some minor issues that need to be fixed as identified > in my last call review dated 2013/04/16. One of the issues I raised was > clarified as common practice in the RAI wgs and I have removed it from > the list. The authors had agreed to fix the following issues but I have > not seen an updated draft yet. > > Minor > ===== > > * Section 4.1 > > There is no error handling specified. i.e. What happens if the server > does not send a 101 reply with sip in the Sec-WebSocket-Protocol header? > > * Section 5.2.2 > > RFC4168 does not update transport-param. Is this a copy and paste error? > > * Section 5.2.4 > > Maybe it is just me, but the way I read it, this section leaves the > client without any mandatory to implement transport protocol for SIP > since it relaxes the need to implement UDP and TCP, as well as allowing > the implementation of the websocket transport using a MAY. > > Thanks > Suresh > > -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
