Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] WG Last Call - Protocol Requirements

From: "Dave Hewins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:42:39 +0000

Hi,

just a few comments on the I-D draft-ietf-spirits-reqs-00.txt, which I hope are
useful.

Comments on the SPIRITS protocol requirements I-D

1.   Page 1,section 1,para 2, 1st sentence replace:  "...documents to
consensus..." with "...documents the consensus...".

2.   Page 2,section 3, 2nd sentence replace same as comment 1.

3.   Page 5, para 1, reference to section 6 should be to section 7.

4.   Page 5, section 5, item 3, 2nd sentence, replace:  "In case the SPIRITS..."
with "As the SPIRITS...".

5.   Page 5, section 5, item 4, line 3, replace: "...encoded Neither..." with
"...encoded.  Neither...".

6.   Page 6 "The list of CS-2 DP's envisaged in SPIRITS is... " this statement
conflicts with that made on page 5, section 5
                clause 1 which states that  "The list of the DPs to be covered
encompasses those defined by the IN Capability Set 3...".
               Other references to CS-2 also occur on pages 7(section 6 last
para) & 11(first para).  The 3 references to CS-2 need
               changing to CS-3.

7.   Pages 6 & 7 Clarification required, I am confused about what is being
stated in section 5 regarding the DPs.  If the first
                list of DPs are those required for a base SPIRITS implementation
with the second list of 3 DPs the additional DPs for the
               milestone services,   then the sentence before the last 3 listed
DPs needs rewording. Because at present it appears
               that all you need for mile stone services is those 3 DPs and not
the others.  The possible change is simple , replace:
               "With that, the only DPs... " with "In addition the following DPs
are..."

8.   Page 9, section 7, para 1, 2nd sentence states: "Thus, Registration is an
essential service (not yet addressed by PINT),
                which is initiated from the IP side."   However to quote from
the last PINT email "With the publication of the PINT MIB the
                PINT working group has fulfilled its mission and milestones and
it is time to close the working group."  Which group will
               address the registration service?

9.   Page 9, section 7, item 1, second line replace: "...which is then passed to
by PINT server ..." with "...which is then passed
                by the PINT server...".

10.  Page 9, section 8, 1st line, reads: "...this section is neither
PINT-specific, nor IN-specific;..." but never discusses PINT,  the
                sentence should read "...this section is neither
SPIRITS-specific, nor IN-specific; ..."

11.  Page 10 Methodology section needs section number changing to 9.

Dave Hewins

_______________________________________________
SPIRITS mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits

---

From: Igor Faynberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:37:56 -0500

Dave,

Thank you very much for a detailed analysis and excellent comments. I
will get to work on them after the IETF meeting. A few comments in-line
(mainly, responses to your questions):

Dave Hewins wrote:
> ...

It does not need to be a group, actually.  There could be four
possibilities:

1) The PINT RFC gets updated (by its authors) and then sent for the IESG
last call 

2) The registration (although a PINT service) is done in SPIRITS as part
of the protocol

3) A new group is formed to deal with the new services (so far, I don't
see a reason for that)

4) The registration is agreed to be just plain vanilla SIP registration,
and that will be reflected in the protocol document (I think this is the
most likely outcome)

> SPIRITS-specific, nor IN-specific; ..."

Ah, that was written because the section was part of the PINT & IN
requirements. Anyway, I will take a closer look.

Again, many thanks for reading, and thinking, and commenting
constructively! This is great help. I especially appreciate it that you
offer a specific fix rather than just say that something is wrong.

Igor