Please see attached review.
Brian
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-sipcore-proxy-feature-09.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2012-09-07
IETF LC End Date: 2012-09-184
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: Almost ready
--------
Comment:
--------
I have to say that this is a clear example of intentional feature creep
in an already very complex protocol. I find it scary. I hope the WG has
thought very carefully about the implications for successful interoperability.
There's only a brief mention of this topic (Section 5.3.5).
In future, I'd like to see this sort of document analysed against the RFC-to-be
draft-iab-extension-recs, which is in AUTH48 right now.
Major issues:
-------------
None.
Minor issues:
-------------
> 4.2.1. General
...
> NOTE: It is not possible to, as a Feature-Caps header field value,
> convey the address of the SIP entity that inserted the Feature-Caps
> header field.
I cannot parse this sentence. Does it mean this?
NOTE: A Feature-Caps header field value cannot
convey the address of the SIP entity that inserted the Feature-Caps
header field.
Or does it mean?
NOTE: A Feature-Caps header field value MUST NOT
convey the address of the SIP entity that inserted the Feature-Caps
header field.
...
> For a given fc-value, as defined in section 5.3.1, feature capability
> indicators are listed in a non-priority order, and any order of the
> listed SIP feature capability indicators have the same meaning.
This is very hard to understand. Does it mean this?
For a given fc-value, as defined in section 5.3.1, the order in which
feature capability indicators are listed has no significance.
> 9. Security Considerations
...
> Therefore, mechanisms for guaranteeing confidentiality and
> authenticity SHOULD be provided.
Is this SHOULD consistent with SIP in general? It seems to me that
this is a case for "MUST be defined and SHOULD be activated."
Nits:
-----
I don't think that the labels "Figure 1" to "Figure 6" are useful.
They are not referred to in the text, and they distract the reader.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
