Subject: RE: [Sipping] expert review for draft-dcsgroup-sipping-proxy-proxy

From: "Burcak Beser" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 00:00:04 -0800

Some issues/points:

1. The section '6 P-DCS-GATE' refers to PacketCable Dynamic Quality of
Service which no longer specifies the Gate Coordination. The term DCS
QoS mechanism should be used instead.

2. I know that because of the above issue the editor of the draft
decided to use old versions of the specifications DQoS
(PKT-SP-DQOS-I05-021127, the latest version is
http://www.packetcable.com/downloads/specs/PKT-SP-SEC-I07-021127.pdf)
and Security (pkt-sp-sec-i05-020116, the latest version is
http://www.packetcable.com/downloads/specs/pkt-sp-cmss-i02-021205.pdf).
Since it is very hard, if not impossible to find older versions of
CableLabs specifications; I do belive that referring an old version of
specification would cause problems due to the fact that people will use
the latest version that does not use the mechanism described. My
suggestion is to remove the references to PacketCable.

3. Another alternative is to remove the section 6 completely which would
result with dependency to DCS being removed as well. Since the remaining
headers are used in the currently used in PacketCable specifications,
the headers are not specific to DCS only. It is my expectation that this
will cause the intrellectual property notice to be dropped as well.

If necessary, I am planning to write an NCS architecture document which
would point the PacketCable architecture that is currently being used,
not as discussed long years ago for PacketCable.

4. I agree with Miguel about dropping the DCS portion from the headers.
Even PacketCable will use these headers in a non-DCS enviroment.

5. In section 8, the definition of Financial Entity ID (FEID) should be
as Financial-Entity-ID for consistency with other definitions.

6. The FEID is defined as 8 byte structure in text, where as the
specification referenced defines it as 'variable length ASII character
string, where first 8 bytes constitute MSO defined data, the rest
contains MSO's domain name.

7. The reference to pkt-sp-em-i03-011221, should be updated due to above
specified reasons. The correct reference is PKT-SP-EM-I05-021127.

8. I could not locate the definitions of Acct-Charge-URI,
Acct-Calling-URI, Acct-Called-URI, Acct-Routing-URI, and
Acct-Location-Routing-URI in the EM spec. 

9. Why not use the same approach as RKS-Group-ID not refer to EM spec,
for all these details. The parameters should be defined as more
generalized  which would make the definitions valid even if the specs
change in the future. (By the way any reasons to keep RKS-Group-ID?)

10. Both P-DCS-LAES and P-DCS-Laes are being used in section 9. I
suggest the use of P-DCS-LAES for consistency.

11. In section '10 Security Considerations' normative MUST is being used
where I believe that should be non-normative must.

12. The acknowledgements section is divided into two and gives the
impression that the DCS team and authors are a disjoint set, which is
not the case. I would like to see that the real authors of the draft (at
least Mike Mannette who wrote most of the initial text) should be
properly acknowledged.

13. Is there a reason for two editors instead of one, as suggested in
rfc-editor policies (http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html).

Burcak Beser

-----Original Message-----
From: Rohan Mahy [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:06 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: [Sipping] expert review for draft-dcsgroup-sipping-proxy-proxy

Hi,

I'd like the SIPPING working group to provide expert review of:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dcsgroup-sipping-proxy-proxy- 
01.txt

The authors have requested individual publication of the P-Headers  
defined therein.  Expert Review will close on January 14, 2003

thanks,
-rohan

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP