Hi, Based on the gen-art comments from Stewart, I have created a pull request for the suggested changes.
https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sip-push/pull/31 Regards, Christer From: Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 20 December 2018 at 17.37 To: Stewart Bryant <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push-21 Resent-From: <[email protected]> Resent-To: Christer Holmberg <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, "A. Mahoney" <[email protected]>, Brian Rosen <[email protected]>, Ben Campbell <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Brian Rosen <[email protected]> Resent-Date: Thursday, 20 December 2018 at 17.37 Hi Stewart, Thank You for the review! Please see inline. >Summary: A well written document with some minor points that could use a little >attention. > >Major issues: None > >Minor issues: > >In Figure 1 the following is included: > > REGISTER sip:[email protected] SIP/2.0 > Via: SIP/2.0/TCP alicemobile.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7 > Max-Forwards: 70 > To: Alice <sip:[email protected]> > From: Alice <sip:[email protected]>;tag=456248 > Call-ID: 843817637684230@998sdasdh09 > CSeq: 1826 REGISTER > Contact: <sip:[email protected]; > pn-provider=acme; > pn-param=acme-param; > pn-prid=ZTY4ZDJlMzODE1NmUgKi0K> > Expires: 7200 > Content-Length: 0 > > SB> However I don't at this stage of the text see the relationship between the > SB> packet flow digram and the text that follows. I could add the following: “Below is an example of a SIP REGISTER request in Figure 1.” ========= > Contact: IESG ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) > > SB> Is the whole IESG the most appropriate first point of contact? That is what I was told :) Note that I have used it also for other documents. ========= >Nits/editorial comments: >Presumably the references to RFC XXXX will be replaced by RFC <this RFC> but >that does not seem to be noted in the text I will add a note to the RFC editor about that. “[RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace RFCXXXX with the RFC number of this document.]” ======== > SB> As dicussed in [RFC4320] and [RFC4321], non-INVITE transactions must > SB> Typo s/dicussed/discussed/ I will fix as suggested. ======== > Example: pn-prid = 00fc13adff78512 > > For more information about the APNs Topic and device token: > > SB> Is the following part of the example? If so it could usefully be delimited > SB> as such, otherwise, I don't understand why it is not a normal document > SB> reference. > > https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/NetworkingI > nternet/Conceptual/RemoteNotificationsPG/CommunicatingwithAPNs.html > > SB> Similarly in the following section The link reference is not part of the example. Perhaps I could place to reference before the examples, to make that more clear? Are you suggesting that I add the link to the reference section, similar to document references? ========= Regards, Christer
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
