(As WG chair)
Just a note that I should have included with the WGLC.
The intention with this document is to republish on a recurring basis,
and therefore to keep it up to date (say once a year or so).
The 1st versions is intended to include gruu, outbound and ice, but
apart from that, anything that is not published in that timeframe will
probably be removed unless there is exceptional justification for
keeping it, with the idea that it will appear in the next version.
regards
Keith
________________________________
From: Avshalom Houri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03
I have been assigned to review of
draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03
from the perspective of presence and the SIMPLE group but ended
up in
commenting on the whole document at the end.
For background on RAI-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/art/rai-art-FAQ.html
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
comments
you may receive.
In my opinion this draft is basically ready for publication, but
has
nits that should be fixed before publication.
Citations from the draft are marked by <<< text from draft >>>
General comments
----------------
By its nature there are a lot of reference to drafts in the
document.
It will take a lot of time for these documents to become and
RFC.
So how we are going to publish this as an RFC? Since when the
referenced drafts will become an RFC, this draft would have to
be
updated with new drafts, will it be held in the
RFC ED queue for ever?
How do we gauge the usage of an RFC or a draft? There are many
places
here that it is said that this or that RFC/draft got widely
implemented
or not.
How it is measured? The wide implementation test is used to
decide
whether an RFC or draft are core or not and therefore there
should be
some text explaining how the wide implementation was determined.
Better change RFC XXXX (before the reference number in []) to
the name
of the draft (with no version number), it will make the ride
smoother.
An introduction that details the various grouping should be
added. It
should include additional text on the group and what was the
criteria
for putting an RFC/draft in the group.
2. Scope of this Document
--------------------------
<<<
o Any specification that defines an extension to SIP itself,
where
an extension is a mechanism that changes or updates in
some way a
behavior specified in RFC 3261
>>>
"to SIP itself" sounds vague. It will be better to say:"to RFC
3261"
instead.
Maybe there should be an earlier definition of RFC 3261 as the
SIP nucleus
(or the president of the galaxy) and that RFCs/drafts mentioned
in this
document are based on their relation to it.
<<<
Excluded from this list are requirements, architectures,
registry
definitions, non-normative frameworks, and processes. Best
Current
Practices are included when they normatively define
mechanisms for
accomplishing a task.
>>>
"normatively define" not sure what is meant by normative with
respect to BCP. Seems like a contradiction in terms.
3. Core SIP Specifications
---------------------------
If we think on presence as eventually replacing registration,
since it
carries much more information about the availability of the
user,
should we consider also presence as a towel?
<<<
RFC 3261, The Session Initiation Protocol (S): RFC 3261 [1]
is the
core SIP protocol itself. RFC 3261 is an update to RFC
2543 [9].
It is the president of the galaxy [42] as far as the suite
of SIP
specifications is concerned.
>>>
RFC 3261 is a very big document. Should it be treated as one or
it can
be divided into parts in this document e.g. proxy, client etc.?
I am not
sure what would be better.
4. Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) Interworking
---------------------------------------------------------
Regarding RFC 3578
Ugly in one corner of the galaxy may be beautiful on the other
of it :-)
7. Minor Extensions
--------------------
<<<
RFC XXXX, Referring to Multiple Resources in SIP (S): RFC
XXXX [44]
allows a UA sending a REFER to ask the recipient of the
REFER to
generate multiple SIP requests, not just one. This is
useful for
conferencing, where a client would like to ask a
conference server
to eject multiple users.
>>>
Should not this be referred to in the conferencing section also?
<<<
RFC 4483, A Mechanism for Content Indirection in Session
Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Messages (S): RFC 4483 [89] defines a
mechanism for
content indirection. Instead of carrying an object within
a SIP
body, a URL reference is carried instead, and the
recipient
dereferences the URL to obtain the object. The
specification has
potential applicability for sending large instant
messages, but
has yet to find much actual use.
>>>
The specification has also potential for sending large presence
documents via a URL.
<<<
RFC 4583, Session Description Protocol (SDP) Format for
Binary Floor
Control Protocol (BFCP) Streams (S): RFC 4583 [91] defines a
mechanism in SDP to signal floor control streams that use
BFCP.
It is used for Push-To-Talk and conference floor control.
>>>
Should not this be referred to in the conferencing section also?
<<<
RFC XXXX, Connectivity Preconditions for Session Description
Protocol
Media Streams (S): RFC XXXX [93] defines a usage of the
precondition
framework [59]. The connectivity precondition makes sure
that the
session doesn't get established until actual packet
connectivity
is checked.
>>>
Should not this be referred to in the QoS section also?
8. Conferencing
----------------
The Conferencing section should be before or after "Instant
Messaging,
Presence and Multimedia" as it is also an application. See the
comment
on whether presence is an application or not later.
10. Event Framework and Packages
----------------------------------
Suggest to divide this section to event framework section and to
packages section. The event framework should include 3265, 3903,
4662
and subnot-etags which define the event framework itself.
The other section will the packages sections that will list the
packages.
Alternatively, many of the packages are mentioned in their
proper
section so it may be that all the event packages can be fit into
their relevant section and there is not a need for packages
section.
11. Quality of Service
-----------------------
<<<
RFC 3313, Private SIP Extensions for Media Authorization (I):
RFC
3313 [61] defines a P-header that provides a mechanism for
passing
an authorization token between SIP and a network QoS
reservation
protocol like RSVP. Its purpose is to make sure network
QoS is
only granted if a client has made a SIP call through the
same
providers network. This specification is sometimes
referred to as
the SIP walled garden specification by the truly paranoid
androids
in the SIP community. This is because it requires
coupling of
signaling and the underlying IP network.
>>>
Understand that being a "truly paranoid" is a virtue? :-)
15. Security Mechanisms
------------------------
Should not RFC 3323 (Privacy), RFC 3325 (Asserted-ID) and RFC
4474
(Identity) be mentioned here also?
16. Instant Messaging, Presence and Multimedia
-----------------------------------------------
Maybe create an applications section and put also conferencing
as a type
of an application.
Including presence here with IM and multimedia seems that
presence is
regarded as an additional type of media. I am not sure that I
agree with
this. Presence is an enabler for many other applications and it
deserves
a section of its own.
It is very tempting to include the simple-simple content here
(as an appendix?). If simple-simple is not to be included here,
there
should be at least a reference to simple-simple as for presence
there are so many documents that are essential for doing
presence and
are not mentioned here (e.g. watcher format, RPID, presence
rules,
partial notify and publish and many many more). Roughly
counting, there
are about 20-25 RFCs/drafts that are very relevant to presence
that are
mentioned in simple-simple in addition to the ones that are
mentioned here.
The MSRP drafts seem to be forgotten?
Thanks
--Avshalom
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
