Re: Volunteer op: Request formal reviews for UA Initiated Privacy

Krishna,

Thank you for your review on ua-privacy draft.

See inline.


> Hi Dean,
> 
> I read this document and I have the following comments 
> 
> 1) Section 4.2 didn't mention any thing about contact header. Second
> para says "Anonymous IP addressed are needed for two purposes" those are
> via and address in SDP for media. Later section 5.1.1 refers back to
> section 4.2
> 
> So I would like to see some description about contact also in section
> 4.2. If anonymous IP address from STUN relay server is used for contact,
> I think all subsequent sip signaling has to go via STUN relay server.

That's true.
Description about contact is missing in 4.2.
We will add some text.

> 
> 2)  Section 4.1 last para: what is third party GRUU server? (I assume
> its a registrar outside the domain?). Are there any SIP mechanisms to
> achieve the functionality described in this para? 
> 
> If yes, I like to see some description.
> If no, Please state some thing like mechanisms outside the scope of this
> document or this is for future standardization etc.

We would like to add the text to explain that
the mechanism of third party GRUU server is
out of scope of this document.

> 
> 3) section 5.1.2 last para: Similar comments as point 2 above.

Add the text to explain the mechanism of
third party anonymization service is out of scope, too.

Thanks,

Mayumi


> 
> Regards
> Krishna
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Dean Willis
> Sent: den 5 november 2008 22:17
> To: SIP IETF
> Subject: [Sip] Volunteer op: Request formal reviews for UA Initiated
> Privacy
> 
> 
> I'd like to request several people to review the UA Initiated Privacy
> draft in conjunction with the WGLC that we expect to start shortly.
> 
> See:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-03.txt
> 
> 
> Such reviews should look at:
> 
> 1) Readability -- does the draft, as written, make sense? Are the
> examples clear?
> 
> 2) Technical correctness: Are the recommendations of the draft valid?  
> Are they consistent with our other specifications, and if not, does the
> draft clearly explain these inconsistencies and give a rationale?
> 
> Each reviewer should write up an email addressing the review, and
> specifically any issues noted, and return that to this list.
> 
> 
> Please volunteer!
> 
> 
> --
> Dean
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use
> [email protected] for questions on current sip Use
> [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
> Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip
> 

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip