Subject: [Sip] yet more bis-07 nits

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 23:24:22 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

hi,

more nits, comments, and proposed clarifications from the pdf version of
bis-07:
section 16 through section 21.

again, please just send comments on the stuff that doesn't make sense.

important stuff marked with **

thanks,
-rohan

2464: bad section reference

2643: s/that element/the next element/

2645: ...MUST resolve to this element.  what about proxy farms or
clusters?  **

2723: append:   "as described in step 6"

2738: s/the element/this proxy/

2806: s/dialogs/of dialogs/

2856: s/to to/to/

2991: s/sends to/rewrites the Request-URI with/

3011: s/obtained by/obtained, by/   (really confusing otherwise)

3093: s/example of/example in/

3102: s/to that server/to the appropriate server/

3104: s/out any/out any response/

3132: s/request/requests/

3229-30:  normative language like NOT RECOMMENED shouldn't hyphenate

3231: s/that the/the/

pages 90 and 92:  (figures 7 and 8)  the Figure X:blah blah  overlaps the
footer

3604: s/UA/UAs/

3744-5: s/the SIP standard today/this document/

3846-50: now that Basic is deprecated to we still need this Paragraph?
***

3866-7: make language consistent with the "single header, mutiple values"
rule

3868:   SHOULD   ->  MUST ??

3878: s/that servers/that SIP servers/

3932: s/These certificates are/The keying material associated with these
certificates is/

3942: s/limitated/limited/

3970: s?a S/MIME?an S/MIME?

3995:  non normative ref to SSH maybe?

4056: s/Proxy-Authorization/Proxy-Authenticate/

4057: append:   "defined in this document"

Section 21.4 general:  add language reminding implementors of comparison
rules in SIP (compress/expand whitespace, case insensitivity, equivalence
between short and long header forms, etc...)
                                                         **

5440:  have codes x80 upwards...  what about some x20 response codes?

5585: s/logged in such/logged in in such/

5649-52:  inconsistent with line 1226

5695: append "Warning reason codes are listed in Section 24.45"

5699:   nuke first sentence

6366:  somehow "IEEE Communications Magazine" got lost from bis-06

_______________________________________________
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: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:23:37 -0600

These are integrated (or are being tracked as bugs)

comments inline

> 2645: ...MUST resolve to this element.  what about proxy farms or

Hmm - I don't think the text as it stands precludes clustering. If
you've distributed your SIP element across a bunch of physical devices,
any resolution to one of those devices is a resolution to that element.

I'll add a motivation block to that effect.

> 2738: s/the element/this proxy/

I used element on purpose here. Its acting in the UAC role when it does these.

> 2991: s/sends to/rewrites the Request-URI with/

it had already rewritten the RURI - I fixed the logic of the sentence.

> 3011: s/obtained by/obtained, by/   (really confusing otherwise)

I can't figure out what your source of confusion was - introducing
the comma doesn't make sense - the location (address/port/transport)
is obtained by resolving the URI. I'll restructure the sentence to make
that more clear.

> 3846-50: now that Basic is deprecated to we still need this Paragraph?

It does not harm that I can see and it helps future proof the spec
against future schemes that might not have a realm.

> 3866-7: make language consistent with the "single header, mutiple values"

same future proof argument as above

> 4056: s/Proxy-Authorization/Proxy-Authenticate/

No - it meant Proxy-Authorization - proxies can remove values
from requests as the request is forwarded.

> 5649-52:  inconsistent with line 1226

1226 changed to "understands but does not support"