Subject: [Sip] RE: Comments on Path-07

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 09:50:27 +0300

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Dean Willis [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 6:21 PM
> To: Khartabil Hisham (NMP/Helsinki); [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Comments on Path-07
> 
> 
> Hisham wrote:
> > Also in this section, it does not mention anything about the first
> route being a strict-route and that the R-URI needs to be 
> re-written yet
> again.
> 
> Huh?
> 

Ok, I missed paragraph in section 4.3

"Note that the inserted Path header field values conform to the syntax
   of a Route element as defined in [1].  As suggested therein, such
   values MUST include the loose-routing indicator parameter ";lr" for
   full compliance with [1]"

Perhaps Section 4.2 is more appropriate for this (or in both sections).

> > There are also few spelling mistakes and nits, do you want those?
> 
> Yes. That's why I asked for feedback and proofreading on the list.
> That's why we went through six versions during list discussion and
> working group last call. That's why we have a seperate IETF Last Call,
> which has now been going on for over a week.
> 
> So please post any corrections you think are needed. Be explicit! The
> same applies to any document under working group review -- the authors
> will be appreciative, and our work will be of better quality, 
> if all of
> you folks in the working group take the initiative to provide 
> feedback.
> Of course, the authors are free to disagree with suggestions 
> and discuss
> further.

Ok then. Here are a few:

- Section 1 first sentence "p roxies" should be "proxies"

- Section 1 second paragraph 
"Likewise, all requests between REGISTRAR and UAa
   must also traverse P1, P2, and P3 before reaching UA."

should be

"Likewise, all requests between REGISTRAR and UA1
                                                ^
   must also traverse P1, P2, and P3 before reaching UA1."
                                                       ^
- Section 1 last paragraph, second last line "to to"

- Section 3 just above table 3

"Support for the Path header field may be indicated by a UA by
   including the option-tag "path" in a Supported header field."

Should that be a "MAY"?

- Section 4.4 last paragraph last line "poilicy" should be "policy"

That's all.

Regards,
Hisham

> Thanks!
> --
> Dean

_______________________________________________
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