Re: [Gen-art] Fwd: Gen-art LC review: draft-holmerg-dispatch-iotl-03.txt

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>
>>> Since you are providing an extension point for other values, someone 
>>> will ask if you need a registry for those values. I suggest 
>>> explicitly saying we are not creating a registry at this time but 
>>> expect to do so if the extension point is ever used to head that conversation off.
>> I could add the following text to the Syntax/General section:
>>
>> 	"This specification does not create an IANA registry for 'iotl' parameter values.
>> 	If new parameters values are defined in the future, such registry needs to be
>> 	created."
>>
>> Or, do you think it should be somewhere else?
> It's fine there. However, I would change the last sentence to "A registry should be considered if new parameter values are defined in the future".

Ok.

	"This specification does not create an IANA registry for 'iotl' parameter values.
 	A registry should be considered if new parameter values are defined in the future"

---------------

>>> The sentence (which occurs in the abstract and introduction) "The 
>>> directionality in traffic legs relates to a SIP request creating a 
>>> dialogue and stand-alone SIP request." does not parse. What is it 
>>> trying to say, and why is it important?
>> The sentence is not needed (and it doesn't belong in the Abstract to begin with), so I suggest to remove it.
> You'll remove it from the introduction as well?

Yes.

Regards,

Christer