Subject: [Sip] Review of draft-campbell-sip-e164-00

From: William Marshall <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:57:56 -0400 (EDT)

Following are my comments from reviewing draft-campbell-sip-e164-00.

Bill Marshall
[email-masked]

NITS:

1) draft has expired, and may disappear at any time from the IETF
internet-draft directory.  It should be re-submitted to keep current.

2) draft is included in the sipt charter item of SIPPING.  The
draft name should be changed to draft-ietf-sipping-e164-00.txt

3) draft name in page header is incorrect, and includes several
non-printable characters.

4) date in page header differs from date on first page of draft.
They should be consistent.

5) should not include a reference in the abstract.  Recommend
dropping tail end of sentence ", as specified in [1]"

6) Two of the references ([1] and [3]) are to internet-drafts.
Ref [1] should be to RFC2916, and Ref [3] should be to RFC2915.

7) The full copyright statement is missing from the end.

SUBSTANTIVE:

1) document describes more than handling of E.164 numbers at a
user agent.  It also includes handling at proxies and at PSTN
gateways.  The introduction and abstract should be updated to
includes these.

2) definite lack of spec language in the draft.  While the abstract
and introduction claim the document describes how a UA will use DNS
to resolve E.164 urls, the only MUSTs are that the UA and proxy MUST
NOT use "e164.arpa" for locally-scoped telephone numbers.

Consider the following paragraph as a suggestion:

The UA MAY send the request to a pre-configured proxy.  Otherwise,
the UA MUST perform a lookup/translation function on the destination
URL.  If a tel: URL, the UA MUST consult an ENUM database, as 
described in [1], and convert it to a sip: URL.  If a sip: URL (or
after conversion of the tel: URL via ENUM), the UA MUST examine
the hostname - if different from the UA the UA MUST consult DNS
and forward the request to that host.  If the hostname matches the
UA and the tag "user=phone" is attached to the URL, the UA MUST 
consult an ENUM database as described earlier for a tel: URL.

3) the draft allows a UA to send the request to a pre-configured
proxy, rather than doing the DNS lookup in ENUM.  The same should
be allowed for a proxy - that it can send the request to a pre-
configured proxy that has the ENUM interface.  Otherwise, the
draft is requiring all proxies to implement the interface to ENUM,
which seems more than needed.

In the suggested spec paragraph above, just change UA to proxy and
include in the proxy procedures.

4) The indented paragraph starting "It is tempting to say that the
tel URL and sip URL in the example..." should be moved to closely 
follow the example (not in the section after the example).  Suggest
putting it after the paragraph "Both example describe..."

5) Open Issues section should be dropped.  RFC2916 is included
by reference, and no need to duplicate its text in the current
document.

Questions for the SIP WG:

1) First paragraph in "User Agent Client" indicates a tel: URL may 
appear in a Contact header.  I don't think this is valid.  Is it?

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  http://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: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:07:47 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Marshall [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 9:58 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Sip] Review of draft-campbell-sip-e164-00
> 
> 

It is not valid. That must be a sip URL.

-Jonathan R.
---
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com