IETF Logo Mail Archive

[cuss] [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-10

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sun, 19 May 2013 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38C2D21F8D70; Sun, 19 May 2013 11:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wnPdHgmJCIaE; Sun, 19 May 2013 11:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0B621F8D71; Sun, 19 May 2013 11:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C731C0526; Sun, 19 May 2013 11:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [10.10.10.104] (pool-70-106-134-20.clppva.east.verizon.net [70.106.134.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F43B1C04D7; Sun, 19 May 2013 11:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <519920BA.9040308@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 14:58:02 -0400
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>
References: <5195550A.3000608@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <5195550A.3000608@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-all@tools.ietf.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, cuss@ietf.org
Subject: [cuss] [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-10
X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" <cuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cuss>, <mailto:cuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss>
List-Post: <mailto:cuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss>, <mailto:cuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 18:58:15 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-10
     A Mechanism for Transporting User to User
         Call Control Information in SIP
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 19-May-2013
IETF LC End Date: 29-May-2013
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed 
Standard

Major issues:

Minor issues:
     The requirements discussions for redirection and referral (second 
paragraph of section 3, in regards REQ-3) includes what appears to be 
normative requirements on redirecting devices.
a) This would seem to belong in section 4 on Normative Definition.
b) It would seem that there ought to be some discussion of what happens 
with redirecting devices that do not understand this new UUI. (I presume 
things work, but I don't see how.)

Nits/editorial comments:
     In section 8.2, given that this is a WG document, should the "the 
authors believe" actually be "the WG believes"?  Or even, given IETF 
rough consensus on this document, "the IETF believes"?

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email