Subject: RE: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-01.txt

From: "Christer Holmberg \(JO/LMF\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:19:48 +0200

Hi,

I don't have any technical comments, but just to make sure I haven't
missed anything: the only thing this document does is changing, when a
proxy forks, a SHOULD in 3261 to a MUST? If so, maybe it could be
mentioned in the introduction.

And, a extremely minor editorial comment:

"The requirement to use the loop-detection algorithm in RFC 3261 is set
at should-strength since it is expected that other mechanisms
that will allow a proxy to determine it is not looping will be
standardized in the near future."

If 3261 was published 4 years ago - what does "near future" means in
IETF terms? :) 

Seriously, does the document really need to "explain" why things were
done in this-or-that way in 3261? Let's just describe the problem (as
the draft does) and fix it...

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Willis [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 10. huhtikuuta 2006 23:16
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Robert Sparks; Keith Drage
Subject: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-01.txt

I'd like to ask the working group to review the "forking loop fix"  
draft preparatory to requesting publication of it as a standards- track
RFC.

The document revised following the Dallas meeting document is  
available from:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-01.txt

I'd like to complete this review by May 7, 2006.

Please send all comments to the list and copy the author,  
[email-masked]

--
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

_______________________________________________
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: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 01:46:01 -0500

inline

> mentioned in the introduction.
I can add a sentence setting the reader's expectations that the  
changes are
this gentle.

> If 3261 was published 4 years ago - what does "near future" means in
Outbound. Sometime before Montreal.

> the draft does) and fix it...
Are you referring to the paragraph you quote above? It doesn't explain
why things are in 3261 - it explains why the SHOULD in _this_ draft
is a SHOULD and not a MUST.

(Putting a reason for SHOULDs is something there's been quite a bit
  of discussion around on-list in general).

RjS