Subject: [Sip] SIP WGLC reminder

From: "Drage, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:50:51 +0200

A reminder that both

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-acr-code-02.txt

And 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-connected-identity-01
.txt

Are currently in WGLC and we are expecting comments by 

Monday 18th September
---------------------

As yet neither document has sufficient indication of review to submit to
the IESG. Neither of these documents is particularly long or complex.
Please review and submit comments. If you have no comments please say
so.

Your reviews are the only way (without just killing the work) that we
can get documents published by the SIP group. Please review.

Regards

Keith

Keith Drage
Lucent Technologies
[email-masked]
tel: +44 1793 776249

_______________________________________________
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: "Francois Audet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:00:26 -0500

Here is my review of Connected-Identity.

I believe the document is in good shape and has received ample comments
over the years 
from the working groups...

General Comments:

- Section 6.4

  I'm not sure what is the intent of the first paragraph. Is the intent
to say that 
  RFC 4474 MUST be used when updating connected identity, which I would
interpret as
  mandating the usage of the Indentity and Identity-Info headers? Or are
we saying
  that there are other requirement concerning the From header itself in
RFC 4474 that
  must be observed? I think it needs to be clarified.

  My assumption is that supporting Connected-ID does NOT mandate the
usage of Identity
  and Identity-Info headers. Those headers are only mandatory if
Authenticated Connected
  Identity is desired. If this is correct, I think it needs to be
explicitely noted (this
  is the material in 6.5).

- Section 6.6
  
  This is more of a question than a request for change. Do we know of
proxies that
  would have problems with From/To changing in a mid-dialog request? And
why the 
  phrase "that record routes"? Does it make any difference?

Editorial comments:

- Section 3

  First sentence of first paragraph: I'd change "a call and its session"
to "a session".

  Last sentence of first paragraph: I'd change "because of call
forwarding" to "because of
  retargeting".

- Section 4

  Last paragraph: remove ", typically located at the outbound proxy, ".
It's not necessarily
  false, but I don't think we need to say that as we can't really
predict how this will be
  implemented.

- Section 5

  Third paragraph: I don't believe the wording about response identity
being subject to study 
  is appropriate for an RFC: it made sense when we were developping the
draft, but I'd rather 
  we remove it now. Similarly, I'm not sure we should keep the wording
about GRUU, because
  we can't predict if GRUU will tackle or not the annonymity issue (as
we saw in the mailing
  list recently). My suggestion would be to remove the paragraph
altogether. If this is 
  not acceptable, then I'd remove all mention of GRUU, and I'd remove
the second sentence of
  the paragraph.

- Section 6.3

  This is more a question than a request for a change. What do we mean
by using a re-INVITE 
  instead of an UPDATE if there is "other reasons" for the re-INVITE?
Any example? The draft
  makes it mandatory for both ends to support UPDATE. Is this because in
some cases we
  may want the identity change to trigger user action (to accept the
change for example)? If
  so, maybe we should state it. 

- Section 7

  Messages show bunch of "TODO" that needs to be done.

- Section 11.1
  
  Reference [3] should be replaced with RFC 4474.

  Reference [8] shouuld be updated to draft-ietf-sip-gruu-10.