Hi Jari, The comment about 3261 section 8.1.1.6 was related to the sentence: " Lower values should be used with caution and only in networks where topologies are known by the UA." If you and others see no objection I am ok with that too.
Best Regards, Meral > -----Original Message----- > From: Jari Arkko > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 10:09 PM > To: Meral Shirazipour > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; The > IESG > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-straw-sip- > traceroute-02 > > Thank you very much for the review, Meral. > > Hadriel - any thoughts on these comments? And Meral, which part of 3261 > section 8.1.1.6 are you thinking that is violated? The MUST? The SHOULD? The > should? I thought it violated only the SHOULD and should parts. which I think > should be fine. but looking at Hadriel for confirmation... > > Jari > > On 02 Jul 2014, at 18:59, Meral Shirazipour <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen- > ART, please see the FAQ at > http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq. > > > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you > may receive. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-02 > > Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour > > Review Date: 2014-07-02 > > IETF LC End Date: 2014-07-04 > > IESG Telechat date: 2014-07-10 > > > > > > Summary: > > This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC, but I have some > comments. > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > - Abstract Suggestion to spell out SIP and B2BUA (Back-to-Back User Agent). > > Also not clear in abstract and in section 1 if hop by hop traceroute for SIP > means sequence of B2BUAs. The analogy to IP traceroute is good but it would > be better to clarify the difference with SIP traceroute. Please take a look at this. > > > > -[Page 3] "be used to directly to test"---->"be used directly to test" > > > > -[Page 4] Section 3.1 references to RFC3261, which is not listed in the > references section. Also it would be preferable to cite this RFC the first time > Max-Forwards header field is mentioned on Section 1. > > > > -[Page 6] [draft-loop-detection] does not refer to the latest version (to be > replaced by RFC number since it is in RFC queue?). > > > > -Just wondering if the proposed mechanism does not violate Section 8.1.1.6 of > RFC3261 > > " > > A UAC MUST insert a Max-Forwards header field into each request it > > originates with a value that SHOULD be 70. This number was chosen to > > be sufficiently large to guarantee that a request would not be > > dropped in any SIP network when there were no loops, but not so large > > as to consume proxy resources when a loop does occur. **Lower values > > should be used with caution and only in networks where topologies are > > known by the UA.** > > > > " > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > Meral > > --- > > Meral Shirazipour > > Ericsson Research > > www.ericsson.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Gen-art mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
