Subject: RE: [Sip] Comments on draft-garcia-sip-visited-network-id-01

From: Tan Ya-Ching ICM N PG U ID A 1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 17:55:40 +0200

Hi,

 - General
   The term 'standalone request'  or 'standalone transaction
   request' is used throughout the document. Please define
   what it means.

 - 3rd paragraph of Section 1
   "... it seems sensitive..." should be "... it seems sensible..."

 - Section 2, point 3 "There is not requirement that..." should
   be "There is no requirement that ...", and at the end of the
   sentence, "in this memo" should be "in this document".

- Section 4
  Please delete the 1st sentence "The P-Visited-Network-ID
  is an extension of a SIP header", or replace it with "This
  specification defines a new header field.

- 1st paragraph on page 4
  "..., a SIP node may insert a new P-Visited-Network-ID header,
  if there was already one present with different contents" is
  misleading. I think you meant :
  "..., a proxy MAY insert a new P-Visited-Network-ID header
  if the request does not contain any P-Visited-Network-ID header
  with the same network identifier as its own network identifier".

  Delete the "a vairous" in "...a various different administrative 
  domains"

- The addition to Table 2 in Section 4
  A "r" should be added to the "ad" under proxy. Proxies must
  be able to read this header.

- Section 5.1
  "The UA SHOULD NOT insert" should be "MUST NOT insert".
  I think the result can be disastrous if a UA inserts one.

- Section 5.2
  Replace "the contents of a provisioned string" with just "a text
  string" and delete the "at the user's home domain" at the end.
  Otherwise it reads like "identifies ...the proxy is operating
  at the user's home network", where it is not.

- 10.2
  draft-sipping-garcia-3gpp-req-03 should be
  draft-garcia-sipping-3gpp-req-03 instead. This same error
  is also in the called party id draft.

Regards,
Ya-Ching

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 16:14:07 +0300

Hi Ya-Ching:

Thanks a lot for your comments. See my answers inline.

/Miguel

>    request' is used throughout the document. Please define

<miguel>
Yes, I will apply a similar treatment as for the P-Called-Party-ID
</miguel>

>    "... it seems sensitive..." should be "... it seems sensible..."
<miguel>
done
</miguel>

>    sentence, "in this memo" should be "in this document".

<miguel>
I have no problems with the change, but many RFCs refer to "this
document" as "this memo".
</miguel>
>   specification defines a new header field.

<miguel>
Replaced
</miguel>

>   Delete the "a vairous" in "...a various different administrative

<miguel>
fine
</miguel>

>   be able to read this header.

<miguel> Ummm... not sure. If a proxy decides to encrypt this 
header, so that only the registrar or proxy at home is able to
read it, it will not make any negative effect to other proxies
in the path. The only negative effect is that these proxies in
the middle will not be able to read the contents, so they will
not know if the same visited network ID was already present or
not. But it does not introduce any problem. 
</miguel>

>   I think the result can be disastrous if a UA inserts one.

<miguel>
Yes, I agree with you, it should be a MUST NOT.
</miguel>

>   at the user's home network", where it is not.

<miguel>
What I wanted to express, is a scenario where a proxy in a visited
network is using different strings to identify his own network
at different home networks. So, for example, proxy P1 receives
a request addressed to network N1; P1 inserts VNID1. The same proxy
P1 receives a request addressed to network N2; it may decide to
insert VNID2. This VNID is known between both networks, so from
the point of view of the protocol I don't see why we should limit
it here.
</miguel>
 
>   is also in the called party id draft.

<miguel>
Ooops... Fixed.
</miguel>

-- 
Miguel-Angel Garcia                     Oy LM Ericsson AB
                                        Jorvas, Finland
mailto:[email-masked]     Phone:  +358 9 299 3553
mailto:[email-masked]        Mobile: +358 40 5140002