Subject: [Sipping] Comments on draft-burger-sipping-netann-10

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:13:14 -0400

Hi Eric,

I was just doing a quick review of the updated netann draft and had a couple
minor comments.

1.  It appears that one change was removing the underscores, sip and hyphen
from the user parts.  However, it looks like there's one part that was
overlooked in section 6 on page 16. The third paragraph still reads:
" Clearly, with the use of underbars, sip, and a hyphen, this conflict is
much smaller than the potential for a conflict like "Postmaster". "
So, I would think that paragraph needs to be removed.  If you do that,
though, you kindof lose the flow of that Postmaster example in paragraph 2
and the 4th paragraph stating:
"The key point is, one cannot confuse the namespace at a Media Server with
the namespace for an organization."
Perhaps, changing that statement to the following would be okay (combining
that with paragraph 3 and thus leading into the example in the next
paragraph):
"However, a key point is that one cannot confuse the namespace at a Media
Server with the namespace for an organization, as highlighted by the example
in the following paragraph."

2.  Some nits on the references:
- the references to kpml [11] and conferencing framework [14] are outdated.
- why is RFC2543 [19] listed?  I don't see a reference within the doc.

Regards,
Mary H. Barnes
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
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

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:36:52 -0400

Good to see someone is looking at it!

Since netann has not changed substantially in two years, and just about all
of the media server vendors are supporting it as is in -10 (not -09, see
__sip- below), is this going to go anywhere in the IETF?  Given it is now
industry practice, is it a BCP?  It certainly is a CP...

On the comments:
Good catch on the __sip- mistake.  BTW, since absolutely none of the 5+
media server vendors had plans to implement __sip-, and since it was a red
herring in the first place, I took it out.  I'll reword that section.

I'll update the references.  The RFC2543 reference smells like an xml2rfc
opportunity...

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 10:13 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Comments on draft-burger-sipping-netann-10

Hi Eric,

---

From: "Dolly, Martin C, ALABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 06:44:07 -0500

If the Bloody Red Sox can win the World Series, netann can move forward
for approval....

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Eric Burger
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 9:37 PM
To: Mary Barnes
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: [Sipping] RE: Comments on draft-burger-sipping-netann-10

Since netann has not changed substantially in two years, and just about
all
of the media server vendors are supporting it as is in -10 (not -09, see
__sip- below), is this going to go anywhere in the IETF?  Given it is
now
industry practice, is it a BCP?  It certainly is a CP...

On the comments:
Good catch on the __sip- mistake.  BTW, since absolutely none of the 5+
media server vendors had plans to implement __sip-, and since it was a
red
herring in the first place, I took it out.  I'll reword that section.

I'll update the references.  The RFC2543 reference smells like an
xml2rfc
opportunity...

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 10:13 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Comments on draft-burger-sipping-netann-10

Hi Eric, 
I was just doing a quick review of the updated netann draft and had a
couple
minor comments. 
1.  It appears that one change was removing the underscores, sip and
hyphen
from the user parts.  However, it looks like there's one part that was
overlooked in section 6 on page 16. The third paragraph still reads:
" Clearly, with the use of underbars, sip, and a hyphen, this conflict
is
much smaller than the potential for a conflict like "Postmaster". "
So, I would think that paragraph needs to be removed.  If you do that,
though, you kindof lose the flow of that Postmaster example in paragraph
2
and the 4th paragraph stating:
"The key point is, one cannot confuse the namespace at a Media Server
with
the namespace for an organization." 
Perhaps, changing that statement to the following would be okay
(combining
that with paragraph 3 and thus leading into the example in the next
paragraph):
"However, a key point is that one cannot confuse the namespace at a
Media
Server with the namespace for an organization, as highlighted by the
example
in the following paragraph."
2.  Some nits on the references: 
- the references to kpml [11] and conferencing framework [14] are
outdated. 
- why is RFC2543 [19] listed?  I don't see a reference within the doc. 
Regards, 
Mary H. Barnes 
[email-masked]