-----Original Message-----
From: Christer Holmberg
[mailto:christer(_dot_)holmberg(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com]
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 12:20 PM
To: Roni Even; gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; draft-ietf-sipcore-
keep(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: 'IETF-Discussion list'
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-sipcore-keep-10
Hi Roni,
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a Standard
track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. In the document you mention that the keep alive can be negotiated
in each direction. I understand the dialog case, is this true
for the case of registration, if yes how is it done from the
registrar. If not true maybe add some text in 4.2.2.
Good point. It is NOT true for the case of registration, when sending
of keep-alives can only be negotiated from the registering party to the
registrar.
I suggest adding the following text to the end of section 4.2.2:
"NOTE: Sending of keep-alives associated with a registration can only
be negotiated in the direction from the registering SIP entity towards
the registrar."
-----
Nits/editorial comments:
1. In section 4.1 in the first note "If a SIP entity has indicated
willingness to receive keep-alives from an adjacent SIP entity,
sending of keep-alives towards the same SIP entity needs to be
separately negotiated".
Who is the same SIP entity mentioned in the end of the sentence. I
assume you meant "towards the adjacent SIP entity".
(I assume you mean "Why" instead of "Who")
You are correct. I propose to change to:
"towards that adjacent SIP entity", to make sure that the text is
referring to the entity that indicated willingness to send keep-alives,
and not some other adjacent SIP entity.
----
2. In the first paragraph of 4.3 and 4.4 you use "must" should it be
"MUST"
As far as I know it shall be "must" when referring to something defined
in another specifiction.
----
3. In 4.3 in the third paragraph "it MUST start to send keep-alives"
change to "it MUST start sending keep-alives"
I'll change as suggested.
----
4. In figure 2 in the 200 OK response to Alice the VIA is missing.
Correct.
I'll change "Alice: UAC;keep=30" to "Via: Alice;keep=30".
----
5. In section 7.4 third paragraph " When Alice receives the response,
she determines from her Via header
field that P1 is willing to receive keep-alives associated with the
dialog." Should be Bob and not P1.
Correct.
I'll change as suggested.
----
Thanks for your comments!
Regards,
Christer=