Subject: [MEDIACTRL] AD review: draft-ietf-mediactrl-ivr-control-package

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:25:29 -0500

This document is close to ready to proceed. There are a few questions  
I have before moving the document
to IETF LC. We'll most likely need to revise the document after we  
have the answers so I'm putting the document
into a "Revised ID Needed" state.

1) I'm not finding any response to the questions in Ben Campbell's  
review at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rai/current/ 
msg00195.html. Can you point me to where they are addressed (or  
address them if you haven't already)?

2) Was there any discussion around the security issues associated with  
pointing to an external resource for a dialog document?  (How do you  
know you got the document you meant to get vs content an attacker  
wants played. How does the thing that's serving the document control  
access to it, etc.) If so, has that discussion been captured anywhere?

3) Is it clear what's supposed to happen when an MS receives a  
document with a <subscribe> with no child elements?

4) Why does the document reserve the remaining single digit status  
codes?

5) 4.3.1.3.1 - Please confirm that the example containing  
<grammar><grammar>...<grammar/><grammar/> conforms to the appropriate  
schemas.

6) There is a problem with the recommendation for recovery from a 406  
error in table 1. If dialogids are intended to be unique across the  
whole MS, and audit results are scoped only to those dialogids created  
by this control channel, the recommendation won't lead to recovery.  
What should the recovery suggestion say instead?

7) I'm not seeing a request for types review for application/msc-ivr 
+xml. Could you please provide a pointer into the archives or have the  
shepherd send the request?

8) Why isn't the document creating a response code registry?

9) What is the motivation for the reserved response codes?

Some nits to fix when the draft is revised next.

a) Please delete the To: and Subject: header fields from 8.1.

b) On page 8: "executed successful," should probably be "executed  
successfully"

c) On page 14: There is a spurious ')' at "Section 7 )."

RjS