Elywn's thorough Gen-ART review pointed out some areas that still need attention. I'm working with Brian to be sure we understand everything provided by Elwynm, and to release another version.
/Jeff/ -----Original Message----- From: Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2025 5:11 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-retransmission-allowed-fixes-03 ietf last call Genart review Document: draft-ietf-sipcore-retransmission-allowed-fixes Title: A Comprehensive Errata for 'retransmission-allowed' XML Element Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review result: Ready with Issues I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-sipcore-retransmission-allowed-fixes-03 Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 2025-12-31 IETF LC End Date: 2026-01-08 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Ready with issues: The fixes to RFC 4119 are not correct and the errata interact with those identified in eid1771 which need to be fixed at the same time. There are also a couple of nits in the list of RFCs that are identified of not suffering from the eid1535 problem Major issues: Minor issues: s1, para 2: Some related issues with the schema that provides the definitions of retransmission-allowed, retention-expiry and external-ruleset are reported and verified in eid1771. These should be fixed here and the eid1771 work documented s2.1: The corrections to Section 2.3 of RFC 4119 don't match the errata. The draft specifies "Example Location Objects", replace both occurrences of There is only one example of a 'no'. The second one is a 'yes'. Additionally eid1771 points out an additional error in the items being corrected here and the other items mentioned below, viz. retransmission-allowed, retention-expiry and external-ruleset are not in the geopriv10 schema but the additional geopriv10:basicPolicy schema (https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/schema/pidf/geopriv10/basicPolicy.xsd) as mentioned in Section 2.2.5 of RFC 4119: So, make the following changes in s2.1: OLD: Section 2.3 "Example Location Objects", replace both occurrences of: <gp:retransmission-allowed>no</gp:retransmission-allowed> With: <gpb:retransmission-allowed>false</gpb:retransmission-allowed> NEW: Section 2.3 "Example Location Objects", replace the two occurrences of: xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10" With xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10" xmlns:gpb="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:basicPolicy" and replace the occurrence of <gp:retransmission-allowed>no</gp:retransmission-allowed> With: <gpb:retransmission-allowed>false</gpb:retransmission-allowed> and replace the occurrence of: <gp:retransmission-allowed>yes</gp:retransmission-allowed> With: <gpb:retransmission-allowed>true</gpb:retransmission-allowed> END s2.1: Additional items in the errata. Erratum eid1535 also contains two trivial element name matching problems between s2.2.2 and s2.2.5 for retention-expires vs retention-expiry and ruleset-reference vs external-ruleset. It might be sensible to fix these two problems by correcting the element names in s2.2.2 while RFC 4119 is being modified. s2.3: The problem identified in eid1771 also applies to RFC5774 OLD: [RFC5774] Section A.5 "Example", replace: <gp:retransmission-allowed>yes</gp:retransmission-allowed> With: <gp:retransmission-allowed>true</gp:retransmission-allowed> NEW: [RFC5774] Section A.5 "Example", replace: xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10" With: xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10" xmlns:gpb="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:basicPolicy" and replace: <gp:retransmission-allowed>yes</gp:retransmission-allowed> With: <gpb:retransmission-allowed>true</gp:retransmission-allowed> END Other RFCs: RFC5580, s4.4, para 2: Does Retention Expires really refer to retention-expiry? RFC6397, s6: Refers incorrectly to retention-expires and ruleset-reference. Nits/editorial comments: I notice that the abbreviation PIDF-LO was never formally introduced in RFC 4119 - it makes its appearance unexpanded in s6.1 in IANA Considerations. It is a bit late to correct this but it would help to add the expansion at the beginning of this draft. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
