Hi John, Thank you for the comments.
See inline. > 1. In 4.1: > "If revealing the domain name in the > Contact header field is a concern, usage of a third-party GRUU server > to obtain a temp-gruu that is irrelevant to users' domain, which is > outside the scope of this document SHOULD be considered." > "SHOULD be considered" is not a testable normative statement. It is not > the user's domain that is outside the scope, but usage of a third-party > GRUU server. The word "irrelevant" in inappropriate here. To take care > of these concerns, I think it should say: > "If revealing the domain name in the Contact header field is a concern, > use of a third party GRUU server is a possible solution, but this is > outside the scope of this document." I agree and will replace the text with the one you proposed. > > 2. In 5.1.1: > "For out-of-dialog > request, anonymous URI MAY be set when anonymization is required." > What is the purpose of this statement? I assume out-of-dialog does not > include dialog-forming (which is covered earlier in the paragraph). For > a completely out-of-dialog request such as a MESSAGE request, why would > one include Contact? For REGISTER, one certainly cannot use an anonymous > URI. The out-of-dialog request indeed meant the MESSAGE request. I checked the RFC and found that MESSAGE requests don't include the Contact header as you pointed out. I will delete the sentence. Thank you! Mayumi > > John _______________________________________________ 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
