Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 20:24:49 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EDF251D1-13F4-4AB5-8489-2DDC663A9ED7@gmail.com>
To: "Review Area gen-art@ietf.org Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/3GeEnhL2ew4HmOPYxyCrxlzjhAY>
Cc: draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates
Precedence: list

<html><head></head><body dir=3D"auto" style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">I am =
the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area<br>Review =
Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed<br>by the IESG =
for the IETF Chair. &nbsp;Please treat these comments just<br>like any =
other last call comments.<br><br>For more information, please see the =
FAQ =
at<br><br>&lt;http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&gt;.=
<br><br>Document: =
draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates-07<br>Reviewer: Ralph =
Droms<br>Review Date: 2016-07-05<br>IETF LC End Date: 2016-07-18<br>IESG =
Telechat date: &lt;unknown&gt;<br><br>Summary: This draft is basically =
ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before =
publication.<br><br><br>Major issues: None<br><br>Minor issues:<br><br>I =
had some difficulty unraveling the relationship among the text in =
section 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 4 and RFC 7315. &nbsp;Section 3.3.2 specifies the =
inclusion of the NPLI option in the P-Access-Network-Info header field. =
&nbsp;Section 4 does not include text about the NPLI option in the =
updates to RFC 7315, and I can't find any reference to the NPLI option =
in RFC 7315. &nbsp;Is the intention that the text in section 3.3.2 =
constitutes new Internet Standard behavior, not reflected in the update =
to RFC 7315, am I missing something or am I completely =
confused?<br><br>Section 3.3.3 specifies the inclusion of the IOI option =
in the P-Charging-Vector header field. &nbsp;In this case, I am not sure =
if this specification represents a change to &nbsp;existing text in RFC =
7315 or new behavior.<br><br>I would be happy to hear that I am =
completely confused; otherwise, I suggest some text be added to clarify =
that sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 also specify some behaviors in addition to =
explaining the text in section 4.<br><br>Nits/editorial =
comments:<br><br>In section 3.2, it would reduce potential confusion to =
consistently name the header field referenced in each bullet; =
e.g.:<br><br>OLD:<br><br> &nbsp;o &nbsp;P-Called-Party-ID: Delete =
statement that the header field can<br> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;appear =
in SIP responses. &nbsp;Add statement that the P-Called-Party-ID<br> =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;header field can appear in the SIP REFER =
method.<br><br>NEW:<br><br> &nbsp;o &nbsp;P-Called-Party-ID: Delete =
statement that the P-Called-Party-ID<br> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;header =
field can appear in SIP responses. &nbsp;Add statement that<br> =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;the P-Called-Party-ID header field can appear in =
the SIP REFER method.<br><br>Section 3.3.1:<br><br>OLD:<br><br> =
&nbsp;This following sections describe, for individual P- header =
fields,<br> &nbsp;the 3GPP use-cases that are base for the =
updates.<br><br>NEW:<br><br> &nbsp;The following sections describe, for =
individual P- header fields,<br> &nbsp;the 3GPP use-cases that are the =
basis for the updates.<br><br>Section 3.3.2: uniformly capitalize =
"Network Provided Location Information".<br><br>Section 3.3.2: 3GPP TS =
23.228 needs a citation of the referenced =
document.<br><br><br></body></html>=