Registering a SIP Resource Priority Header Field Namespace for Local Emergency Communications
draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-05
Yes
(Robert Sparks)
No Objection
(Brian Haberman)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ralph Droms)
(Ron Bonica)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -02)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-08-11 for -02)
Unknown
Shouldn't Section 5 repeat (and expand upon) the comment in paragraph 1 of Section 1... This namespace is not envisioned for use on the open public Internet because it can be trivially forged.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-08-10 for -02)
Unknown
Substantive comments; non-blocking, but please consider and feel free to chat with me: -- Section 1 -- This will ensure more the important calls are established or retained; therefore the "esnet" namespace is given five priority-levels instead of just one. I can't parse the first part of this sentence, and don't know how it relates to the second part. Can you please re-phrase this? -- Section 5 -- OLD given that this indication is to give preferential treatment of marked traffic great preference within the network verses other traffic. You have the preference stuff in there twice, probably due to an editing glitch. (If you decide to keep "versus", correct its spelling.) NEW given that this indication is to give marked traffic great preference over other traffic within the network. ======== Other comments; no need to respond to these. Take them or modify them as you please: -- Section 1 -- OLD The "esnet" namespace MUST only be used in times of an emergency, where at least one end, setting aside the placement of B2BUAs, of the signaling is within a local emergency organization. Splitting "at least one end of the signaling" is awkward, and makes this hard to read. NEW The "esnet" namespace MUST only be used in times of an emergency, where at least one end of the signaling, setting aside the placement of B2BUAs, is within a local emergency organization.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(for -03)
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-08-12 for -02)
Unknown
Please consider the comments from the Gen-ART Review by David Black, especially ones concerning Section 2. The review can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07663.html
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-02-19 for -04)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing my concerns.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-02-11 for -03)
Unknown
Thanks for taking my discuss points and comments into account. I have the following non-blocking comments on -03 in case they're useful: abstract: "usage to" is an odd phrase p2, last para: suggest s/reduced to a minimum/reduced to an acceptable level/ p3, "would need to have a trust relationship" is still very vague, I think what you need to say is that the ASP and the rest of the ESInet trust one another to not mess with this header. That's a very specific aspect of a trust relationship. ("Directly attached" is also confusing really, I think you could lose that entire paragraph.) - section 2, 2nd para: I think it'd still be good to add a statement like 'The "esnet" namespace MUST NOT be used on the public Internet unless the node adding the header has specific knowledge that the SIP message will subsequently be processed solely within an ESInet.' - section 3, 1st para: 45 different types? Seems an odd thing to say. Maybe I'm missing a reference. - p6, "the ESInet to emergency authorities calling public citizens" is very unclear which seems like a bad idea. - p7, I have no idea what "designated into" means.o - p7 typo: "incorrect use of namespace" - p8, I don't get what "usage into" means
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown