Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Call Control - Transfer
draft-ietf-sipping-cc-transfer-12
Yes
(Cullen Jennings)
(Jon Peterson)
No Objection
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Jari Arkko)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ross Callon)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-11-05)
Unknown
I support Cullen's discuss about multipart wrapping. While a single-part multipart/mixed is legal MIME and in theory equivalent to moving the inner part up a level; in practice the extra wrapper tends to confound processing agents and UIs. Because both cases are MIME compliant, this falls under the "be liberal in what you accept, conservative in what you send" principle. So it's bad practice to misbehave when receiving a single-part multipart/mixed, but it's also bad practice to send it in the first place. While a "bad sending practice" example may be useful in specs to help receivers get more robust, it needs to be identified as a bad practice.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-11-04)
Unknown
Typo at the end of section 11.1: > > If the gateway supports more than one truck group, > s/truck/trunk/
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-11-04)
Unknown
Section 5 s/he Transferee had initiated/the Transferee had initiated/ Section 7.2 s/different that in current/different than in current/ Section 7.5, Figure 9 I believe the Invite associated with dialog4 should be dialog3 Section 7.5, Figure 10 I was confused by the messages associated with dialogs 3 and 4. I thought the final BYE/200 OK should be associated with dialog4 rather than dialog3. It looks like dialog3 never terminates; is a message missing? Section 7.6 s/to a race conditions/to race conditions/ s/In this, case the call flow/In this case, the call flow/ Section 9, Figure 16 The figure omits dialog numbers.