Subject: [Sip] Editorial comments on draft-rosenberg-sip-outbound-discovery-mid-dialog-00

From: "Christer Holmberg \(JO/LMF\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:50:31 +0100

Hi,

Some editorial comments on the first parts of the draft.

Chapter 1.
----------

Q1.

The text says:

"SIP-outbound also provides a keepalive mechanism, utilizing the Simple
Traversal Underneath NAT (STUN) [5],"

I think we should say that "SIP-outbound also USES a keepalive
mechanism, utilizing...", since STUN keepalive is not part of the
SIP-outbound mechanism.

Q2.

The text, when referring to SIP-outbound, you mostly use outbound proxy
wording. I think it would be good to say that it corresponds to what
SIP-outbound calls edge proxy - or to use edge proxy also in this draft.
Currently edge proxy wording is used in Req-2 and in chapter 9.

Chapter 2.
----------

Q3.

In requirement 4, I guess the IMS IBCF could also be mentioned. An IBCF
will most likely Record-Route, while an I-CSCF may not always.

Chapter 3.
----------

Q4.

Should we put the basic outbound discovery text into the SIP-outbound
draft (I think Juha also asked this question earlier)?

Q5.

As part of the outbound discussion, I've argued that an UA should not be
mandated to establish flows through all edge proxies it is aware of. So,
the question is whether an UA MUST establish flows through each proxy
listed in the Alternative-Proxies.

As part of the outbound discussion I have also proposed the possibility
for the network to indicate in the REGISTER response how many flows the
UA should establish. I think that would be useful also together with
Alternative-Proxies.

Regards,

Christer

_______________________________________________
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