[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Sip] Review of draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance
The following is the details of the review call and agenda for the call.
Comments are welcomed by email before the start of the call.
Regards
Keith
I have posted the comments from WGLC on
draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance at:
http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/reviews/location-conveyance/index.html
Please let me know if I have missed any comments.
There will be a review conference call of these comments on:
Wednesday 25th April at
1:00 pm - 3:00 pm Central US time
2:00 pm - 4:00 pm Eastern US time
7:00 pm - 9:00 pm UK time
8:00 pm - 10:00 pm Central Europe time
Bridge details:
Chairperson Name: KEITH DRAGE
Access Phone Number: 8007718734
International Access Phone Number: +1 6477233953 7-Digit Access Code:
5776249
While this call is in no sense restricted, this call is for people who
have reviewed the document. If you think you qualify, and have not sent
comments that are included above, or indeed reviewed and had no
comments, then please send me a mail indicating this.
Agenda:
1) Roll call
2) Agenda bash - lets not spend too much time moving things around,
concentrate on what is missing, or what does not need to be discussed.
Note that the comments listed below are only what are regarded as the
more major issues meriting collective discussion and review - I expect
the editors to use their initiative on many of the others.
3) Methodology
First discussion of key points.
If new comments arise from discussion, please identify verbally
and ensure they are documented.
Comments discussed can have resolution agreed in the call, or
defer, or take to list, or leave to authors to make a judgement.
4)
Issues relating to multiple locations
Comments: 2, 3, (66), 78, 94, 96, 153, 164
Key questions:
Do we want multiple locations? If there are multiple locations,
which should be used?
If a 424 is returned, which location does it relate to?
Which location does the warning refer to?
In what circumstances can multiple locations cause a call to
fail - or can one be used and ignore the rest?
If you have a location by value, do you need to also resolve any
location by reference?
Anything different for multiple locations in responses?
5) Security issues
Comments: 21, 27, 117A, 129C, 129D, 168, 181A, 181B, 137
Key questions:
Any issues with mandating multipart MIME?
Signing versus encryption issues?
Document security issues when retrieving location by reference?
Are mechanisms different for LbyrR and LbyV?
Is security considerations section adequate?
Are self signed certificates out of scope?
Is mandating a retry without TLS in scope?
6) Emergency issues
Comments: 129B, 167A, 169
Key questions:
Should we cover emergency at all in this document?
7) Response usage
Comments: 29, 150
Key questions:
Is it allowed in responses, and if so, what are the procedures
for error handling?
What are the associated Require: and Supported: procedures?
8) Error handling issues
Comments: 30, 79, 84, 85, 110, 147
Key questions:
Dialog usage - does 424 clear the dialog or just the specific
usage?
Can Warning only appear in 424?
Do we need all the warnings given?
Do we need 701?
What mechanism should we use to indicate URL schemes?
Do we always return an error, or can we just ignore a problem?
9) Method usage
Comments: 62, 69, 73, 74
Key questions:
INFO?
Mid call location updates use what mechanism?
REFER?
PUBLISH?
BYE?
10) Body issues
Comments: 159
Key questions:
What additional information is needed to describe bodies?
11) PIDF-LO usage
Comments: 121, 153A
Key questions:
Point usage deprecated?
Proxy usage - what can proxy say about this location - is this
in scope of this document or does GEOPRIV need to handle it?
12) URI issues
Comments: 7, 64
Key questions:
13) Routeing query allowed issues
Comments: 11
Key questions:
14) Retransmission allowed issues
Comments: 61A
Key questions:
Is mechanism needed?
15) Terminology usage
Comments: 1, 19, 43A, 101A, 116B, 129A
Key questions
Are "by value" and "by reference" the appropriate terms?
Is LbyR a using protocol?
Are there any circumstances where we need to talk about LIS
rather than LS?
16) Pull mechanisms
Comments: 25, 144A
Key questions:
Are the mentioned pull mechanism valid, given that we don't
cover them at all?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:drage at alcatel-lucent.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 6:39 PM
> To: IETF SIP List
> Subject: RE: [Sip] Review of draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance
>
> A reminder of the call tomorrow, and also that I have posted
> an updated set of comments including some late comments received.
>
> The numbering remains consistent for the comments that were
> previously posted, and we will refer to comments by numbers
> on the call tomorrow.
>
> Keith
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:drage at alcatel-lucent.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 6:13 PM
> > To: IETF SIP List
> > Subject: [Sip] Review of draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance
> >
> > I have posted the comments from WGLC on
> > draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance at:
> >
> >
> http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/reviews/location-conveyance/index.html
> >
> > Please let me know if I have missed any comments.
> >
> > There will be a review conference call of these comments on:
> >
> > Wednesday 25th April at
> >
> > 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm Central US time
> > 2:00 pm - 4:00 pm Eastern US time
> > 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm UK time
> > 8:00 pm - 10:00 pm Central Europe time
> >
> > Bridge details:
> >
> > Chairperson Name: KEITH DRAGE
> > Access Phone Number: 8007718734
> > International Access Phone Number: +1 6477233953 7-Digit
> Access Code:
> > 5776249
> >
> > While this call is in no sense restricted, this call is for
> people who
> > have reviewed the document. If you think you qualify, and have not
> > sent comments that are included above, or indeed reviewed
> and had no
> > comments, then please send me a mail indicating this.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use
> > sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use
> > sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use
> sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
>
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip