Subject: [sipcore] draft-ibc-sipcore-sip-websocket-02.txt - editorial comments

From: "Nataraju A.B" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:25:37 +0530

Hi All,

Following is the snippet of text from rfc6455 and
"draft-ibc-sipcore-sip-websocket-02.txt".

<draft-ibc-sipcore-sip-websocket-02.txt>

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

<draft-ibc-sipcore-sip-websocket-02.txt>

<rfc6455>

2.  Conformance Requirements

   All diagrams, examples, and notes in this specification are non-
   normative, as are all sections explicitly marked non-normative.
   Everything else in this specification is normative.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

</rfc6455>

Usage of text "_This section is non-normative._" will not convey same
meaning in both the documents.

Please add the first paragraph of sec.2,rfc6455 to sec.2 of this draft.
Otherwise the draft would be confusing about usage of the text "_This
section is non-normative._"

I know this is minor comment, but required to make the draft clearer.

Thanks,
*Nataraju A.B.*

---

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:21:08 +0200

> I know this is minor comment, but required to make the draft clearer.

Hi Nataraju, we will add it in next revision of the draft.

Thanks a lot.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>

---

From: "Nataraju A.B" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:56:02 +0530

A better option is to use the default notion used in most of the rfc's.
That is, by default consider complete text/information in draft/rfc is
non-normative (mandatory to follow, but with different strength based on
SHOULD, MUST, etc....) and normative (informative) text is specified by an
indented TAB (this is optional to satisfy)

<websocket-02.txt>

5.3.  Locating a SIP Server

   RFC 3263 [RFC3263] specifies the procedures which should be followed
   by SIP entities for locating SIP servers.  This specification defines
   the NAPTR service value "SIP+D2W" for SIP WebSocket Servers that
   support plain WebSocket transport and "SIPS+D2W" for SIP WebSocket
   Servers that support secure WebSocket transport.

      Unfortunately neither JavaScript stacks nor WebSocket stacks
      running in current web browsers are capable of performing DNS
      NAPTR/SRV queries.

</websocket-02.txt>

Here the 2nd paragraph is normative text, hence it is only information
to implementer. But would not lead to any inter-operability issue, if
not followed religiously.

-- 
Thanks,
Nataraju A.B.

---

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:56:05 +0200

Hi Nataraju,

After reading various mails from you about this topic I think that you
are confusing the meaning of "normative" and "informative" words (hope
I'm not wrong).

- "normative" text is a text that creates rules.
- "informative" text does not create rules but just helps or adds some
useful information.

But by reading your text:

2012/4/28 Nataraju A.B <[email-masked]>:
> consider complete text/information in draft/rfc is
> SHOULD, MUST, etc....)

That is "normative" instead of "non-normative".

> and normative (informative) text is specified by an

That is "informative" and therefore also "non-normative".

Regards.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>

---

From: "Nataraju A.B" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:42:20 +0530

Inaki,

You are right, I was wrong while using the words normative and informative.

-- 
Thanks,
Nataraju A.B.