Subject: [sipcore] Doc Shepherd review of draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-03

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 17:47:45 -0500

As I was going through the draft for the doc shepherd writeup, I came 
across the following:

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

3.2: There should be a normative reference for RFC5234 for the ABNF. 
Also the Note should say that HCOLON is defined in 3261.

6.1: The IANA considerations needs a bit more guidance and needs to 
match the sub-registry column headings.

Old:

    [RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this
    document when publishing]

       RFC Number:  RFC XXXX

       Header Field Name:  Content-ID

       Compact Form:  none

Suggested:

    The header field described in Section 3 has been registered in the
    "Header Fields" sub-registry of the "Session Initiation Protocol
    (SIP) Parameters" registry by adding a row with these values:

    [RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this
    document when publishing]

       Header Name:  Content-ID

       compact:

       Reference:  RFCXXXX

Nits:

1.4.1 and 1.4.2, 1st paragraphs:

Old:                          then the UAC needs to include one
    content only in the INVITE request.  This content can be ...

Suggested:                   then the UAC needs to include only
    one body part in the INVITE request.  This body part can be ...

3.2 1st paragraph: Remove the "s" from "fields"

3.4.1 1st and 2nd paragraphs: s/which/that

Everything else checks out.

Thanks!

Jean

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 07:13:18 +0000

Hi Jean,

Thank You for the review! Please see inline.

>Also the Note should say that HCOLON is defined in 3261.

Will fix as suggested.

---

>    document when publishing]

Will fix as suggested.

---

>    one body part in the INVITE request.  This body part can be ...

Will fix as suggested.

>3.2 1st paragraph: Remove the "s" from "fields"

Will fix as suggested.

>3.4.1 1st and 2nd paragraphs: s/which/that

Will fix as suggested.

I have created a pull request with the changes:

https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-content-id/pull/5

Regards,

Christer

---

From: Ivo Sedlacek <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 07:59:20 +0000

Hello,

>    one body part in the INVITE request.  This body part can be ...

IMO, the above changes the semantic of the sentence.

According to RFC2045, the term "body part" refers to an entity **inside of a multipart entity**.

The original text above allowed for the content to be included either using multipart message-body or using non-multipart message-body, in the INVITE request .
The new text above indicates that  the content needs to be included using multipart message-body in the INVITE request.

So, I would rather stick to "content", or perhaps replaces "content" with "entity" or "MIME entity".

Kind regards

Ivo

---

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 08:14:49 -0500

Hi Ivo,

On 5/5/17 2:59 AM, Ivo Sedlacek wrote:
>> Suggested:                   then the UAC needs to include only one
>> body part in the INVITE request.  This body part can be ...
> 
> The original text above allowed for the content to be included either
> using multipart message-body or using non-multipart message-body, in
> the INVITE request . The new text above indicates that  the content
> needs to be included using multipart message-body in the INVITE
> request.
> 

I like "MIME entity".

Thanks!

Jean

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 13:48:11 +0000

Hi,

Pull request updated, with s/body part/MIME entity

Regards,

Christer

---

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 13:26:28 -0500

Hi Christer,

Thanks for making the changes!

Jean

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 19:20:07 +0000

Hi,

I've submitted a new version (-04), with the changes.

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: A. Jean Mahoney [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 08 May 2017 20:26
To: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>; Ivo Sedlacek <[email-masked]>; SIPCORE <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Doc Shepherd review of draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-03

Hi Christer,

Jean

On 5/5/17 8:48 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>> The original text above allowed for the content to be included 
>>> either using multipart message-body or using non-multipart 
>>> message-body, in the INVITE request . The new text above indicates 
>>> that  the content needs to be included using multipart message-body 
>>> in the INVITE request.
>>>

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 06:48:56 +0000

Hi,

I noted that I forgot one instance of the fix, so I did that and submitted
a new version (-05).

Regards,

Christer

On 08/05/17 22:20, "Christer Holmberg" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>To: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>; Ivo Sedlacek
><[email-masked]>; SIPCORE <[email-masked]>;
>[email-masked]