Subject: [salud] End of IETF Last Call

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:31:42 -0400

[as chair]

The IETF Last Call for the draft has ended.  The next step is to
ensure that all the Last Call comments are handled, and then Richard
can provide a write-up that officially defines the standards action
requested of the IESG.
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/help/state/draft-iesg/)  Then the
draft can be placed before the IESG for approval.

There were no Last Call comments.

However, Richard raised a number of issues for the authors to
consider, and I think it is approporiate to handle them at this time.

[as an author]

Richard has raised a number of issues in his AD Review
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud/current/msg00496.html).  I
think that we have satisfied Richard that the issues require no change
in the draft, with the possible exception of the following issue, for
which I think it might be useful to add a sentence to section 13.
Personally, I'm not sure that it's strictly necessary, but it might
ensure that implmentations avoid a certain class of error that would
be easy to make:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud/current/msg00503.html

> > Section 13 says that the UA MUST provide a "reasonable rendering".   How do
> > I tell if a UA meets that criterion?  Might be better to add in Section 11
> > a requirement of the form, "if a UA cannot process the set of Alert URNs in
> > a message, then it MUST still provide some alert (chosen by local policy).
> >  Failure to parse Alert URNs MUST NOT cause a UA not to alert at a
> > all."
> 
> I was thinking that it might be desirable to add some text to cover
> Richard's issue.  On one hand, it seems that "reasonable rendering"
> should automatically include "the user can perceive it", but it might
> be useful to be explicit in regard to this particular feature of
> signals.
> 
> One way to do this would be to extend the last paragraph of section
> 13, which reads
> 
>    The User Agent (UA) MUST produce a reasonable rendering regardless of
>    the combination of URIs (of any schemes) in the Alert-Info header
>    field.
> 
> by adding
> 
>    In particular, under any circumstances a UA MUST provide some alert
>    unless it is explicitly instructed not to (by Alert-Info URIs that
>    it understands, local policy, or direction of the user).

Dale

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:57:48 -0400

>>     it understands, local policy, or direction of the user).

While contemplating this I got thinking:

What are expectations if you get an INVITE with both Alert-Info and 
Replaces?

Normally one expects that INVITE/Replaces won't alert. I suppose that 
expectation is really local policy. And ISTM that it would be really 
unusual to put an Alert-Info with it.

And how does that relate to Richard's question?

	Thanks,
	Paul