Hi Gilad
Thanks for reviewing the document. Here my comments with <Ranjit>
Regards
Ranjit
________________________________
From: Gilad Shaham [mailto:***@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 5:50 AM
To: Avasarala Ranjit-A20990; ***@ietf.org; ***@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Sip] New version
of"draft-avasasarala-dispatch-comm-diversion-info" draft submitted
Hi,
See some comments
Page 5:
"... For e.g. the subscriber wanted to diverted all incoming calls to
voice-mail,
between 3.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. Yet, by mistake she configures the
time-duration as 3.00 to 4.00 p.m"
Some of the sentence needs restructuring and I also don't fully
understand the example. Is it AM-PM or wrong field was configured?
<Ranjit> Agreed. Will correct the sentence.
Page 12:
What if time-range is missing? What should be the default? Sounds to me
the default should be the current time with no end date.
<Ranjit> if time-range is missing, then notifications for all
communication diversions are sent.
Page 14:
In Comm-div-info-selection-criteria there are several disable-*
subsections, yet their text describes these element gives the subscriber
option of adding information. Shouldn't this be for omitting information
or alternatively, call these elements "enable-*" or did I misunderstand
the purpose.
<Ranjit> E.g disable-originating-user-info -> this element gives the
subscriber the option of adding originating-user-info element to the
notification information. The default value is false which means that
the subscriber wants the originating-user-info element to be present as
part of the notification information. If the value is set to TRUE, then
originating-user-info element is removed from the notification
information document.
Page 16:
<user-name>Boss</originating-user-name>
Should be
<user-name>Boss</user-name>
<Ranjit> Corrected.
It might be also useful to see an example of periodic request.
<Ranjit> Will see if I can add one.
Page 21:
503 is there, but I don't see 500. Some implementations will avoid 503
and use 500 due to discussion related to this
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hilt-sip-correction-503-01 (now
expired, but still affected some vendor decisions). I might be able to
think of some scenario that involves 502, but I assume this is a result
of the diversion implementation itself so maybe that's the context of
this discussion.
<Ranjit> Will add 500 also.
Thanks
Thanks
Gilad
________________________________
From: sip-***@ietf.org [mailto:sip-***@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Avasarala Ranjit-A20990
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:07 AM
To: ***@ietf.org; ***@ietf.org
Subject: [Sip] New version
of"draft-avasasarala-dispatch-comm-diversion-info" draft submitted
Hi All
We have submitted an updated version of
draft-avasasarala-dispatch-comm-diversion-info
It can be accessed at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-avasarala-dispatch-comm-div-no
tification-01.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-avasarala-dispatch-comm-div-n
otification-01.txt>
This draft proposes a SIP Event package for Communication Diversions
Notification Information and conforms to procedures and schema described
in 3GPP TS 24.604.
Please review and comment
Regards
Ranjit