Despite any vagaries in Dean's calling notice - this is WGLC. Hence we will consider this as a WGLC comment.
It would be useful if other members of the working group comment on this comment to ensure the editor has some WG consensus to work from, as well as reviewing the draft for their own WGLC comments. Regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Francois Audet > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:21 PM > To: Dean Willis; SIP IETF > Cc: LEBEL, CHRISTOPHE (CHRISTOPHE) > Subject: Re: [Sip] WGLC on draft-ietf-sip-record-route-fix > > I do have a significant comment on this draft, because of > decisions in the final version if draft-ietf-sip-sips that > fix some of the bugs hightlihted in this draft (and remove a > use case for double record route). > > I believe those changes fix BUG 734 and BUG 735 as listed by Robert. > > Since draft-ietf-sip-sips does NOT use double record routing > anymore (in fact, it prohibits mapping from sip to sips), > references to this effect need to be removed from the > document. Specifically: > > - In section 1: > - In first paragraph, delete ", sip to sips". > - Please delete the fourth sub-bullet. > > - Section 3.2: I believe the following sentence in the 4th paragraph > shall be deleted: > "Then, this section speaks about record-route requirements > when transiting from sips to non-sips. It's not clear that the > section doesn't apply to TLS to non-TLS transitions where > SIPS is not > involved (see [BUG734]).". > Later in this section, you quote the following paragraph > from RFC 3261/ > section 16.7 bullet 8: > "If the proxy received the request over TLS, and sent it out over a > non-TLS connection, the proxy MUST rewrite the URI in the Record- > Route header field to be a SIPS URI". > As per draft-ietf-sip-sips-08/Appendix B, this whole paragraph has > been deleted as a "Bug fix". So you should remove it from the text > (and maybe refer to it's removal as per draft-ietf-sip-sips-08). > Furthermore, ther paragraph right after should thus be reworded as > follows: > Indeed, [RFC3261] suggests rewriting the Record-Route header in > responses. > (i.e., everything starting with ", and mandates..." until > the end of the > paragraph is deleted. > I believe this means that BUG734 and BUG735 has been adressed by > draft-ietf-sip-sips-08 since mapping between sips and > non-sips has been deprecated. > > - In section 4, change the last sentence to "This recommendation > applies to all uses of Record-Route rewriting by proxies, including > transport protocol switching and multi-homed proxies." > > > > I would like these changes do be done before WGLC. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > > Dean Willis > > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 08:32 > > To: SIP IETF > > Subject: [Sip] WGLC on draft-ietf-sip-record-route-fix > > > > > > I believe we're ready to do working group last call on the > > Record- Route guidelines draft. Please get comments back to > the list > > before July 29. > > > > > > See: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-record-rout > e-fix-03.txt > > > > > > -- > > Dean > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip mailing list https://www.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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list https://www.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 > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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
