Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-holmberg-dispatch-received-realm-08.txt

Christer Holmberg <> Wed, 09 November 2016 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C0181294CF; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 12:20:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o6_SlwBHZ5kz; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 12:20:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 304691294EC; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 12:20:33 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-83fff70000000467-3e-5823850e8fe7
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 39.2C.01127.E0583285; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 21:20:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 21:20:30 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Francis Dupont <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: review of draft-holmberg-dispatch-received-realm-08.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSOpjVF0O9i7kn80SFqssJGAEqeaDRCQRQ
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 20:20:29 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7li5/q3KEwc3ZwhZ3+r8xWzyatpPV 4uqrzywOzB7vpv5h9Viy5CdTAFMUl01Kak5mWWqRvl0CV8bPpUsZC06IV+zd/5KtgbFXqIuR k0NCwESi6eNPxi5GLg4hgXWMEvNfbWCBcBYzSuz/cIe5i5GDg03AQqL7nzZIg4hAuMTv64fB wswChRLnfoqAhIUFXCQu3elmgShxldjz9y47hG0k0bt+KRuIzSKgIvH0BUgrJwevgK/EhB8f WEDGCAlYSbx+6QcS5hSwlphy9BBYK6OAmMT3U2uYQGxmAXGJW0/mM0GcLCCxZM95ZghbVOLl 43+sELaSxKLbn6HqdSQW7P7EBmFrSyxb+BpqraDEyZlPWCYwis5CMnYWkpZZSFpmIWlZwMiy ilG0OLW4ODfdyEgvtSgzubg4P08vL7VkEyMwWg5u+W21g/Hgc8dDjAIcjEo8vB8slSOEWBPL iitzDzFKcDArifC+bAYK8aYkVlalFuXHF5XmpBYfYpTmYFES5zVbeT9cSCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUI JsvEwSnVwDin48rsP2FVu5f+2lL43H27WrnDQultvOZ2s3i/xWssEV50wev8/CddUabunfdS pqoUHJ+XsHnVViUlaZNbJndjDJ3uP4quebf5z9UzhdaP74S+Sino9XM9co739b1LTcvWa3K4 aD+Xujibddda4Xlp6+bbXvwk0v/k0wrVG53LPz6Z8cBCXm2FEktxRqKhFnNRcSIAfoH7DJIC AAA=
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-holmberg-dispatch-received-realm-08.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 20:20:35 -0000

Hi Francis,

Thank You for the review! Please see inline.

>Document: draft-holmberg-dispatch-received-realm-08.txt
>Reviewer: Francis Dupont
>Review Date: 20161103
>IETF LC End Date: 20161123
>IESG Telechat date: unknown
>Summary: Almost Ready
>Major issues: None
>Minor issues: the wording should be improved by a native English writer (there are no language 
>construct I can't understand but some are clearly incorrect and I am not sure someone for instance 
>from Asia will have no trouble).

Adam Roach, who is a native English speaker, did a fairly detailed review of the draft, and had a number of editorial comments. But, if you think there is text that is incorrect it should of course be fixed.

Below you have a comment on a sentence in section 1.1. Is there something else that you also consider incorrect?

>Nits/editorial comments:
> - title page 1: Add SIP before "Via header"

I will add as suggested.

> - ToC page 2 and 10 page 11: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

>From an English grammar perspective I think both are correct, but without the "e" is the U.S way, so I'll change as suggested.

> - 1.1 page 2: IMHO it is better to expand the SIP abbrev as it is done
>  in the Abstract (note SIP is well known so it is not required to expand
>  it at the first use).

I will expand, and add a reference to RFC 3261.

> - 1.1 page 2: the SIP requests -> SIP requests

I suggest to say "the SIP requests associated with the session".

> - 1.1 page 2: transit network. -> transit networks.

I will fix as suggested.

> - 1.1 page 3 (wording): In order to do that ... , belongs.
>  This construct is not natural at all in English

I am not sure how I could change it.

Would removing a couple of commas have any impact?

   "In order to do that, a transit network often needs to know to which
   operator (or enterprise) the adjacent upstream network from which
   the SIP session initiation request is received belongs."

...and/or say "In order to provide such services, a transit..."

> - 1.2 page 3: e.g. -> , e.g., (and) (e.g. -> (e.g.,

I will fix as suggested.

> - 1.3 page 4 (at end of line): i.e. -> i.e.,

I will fix as suggested.

 >- 2 page 4: perhaps there should be an extra comma in "based e.g., on..."?
 > (I suggest to use "for instance")

I have no idea whether there should be two commas, but I can replace it with "for instance" as suggested.

> - 3 page 4: you don't list all RFC 2119 key words (I am not sure
>  it is a problem but for instance MAY NOT is not there).

I had a look at a few other RFCs and "MAY NOT" does not appear in those either. I've never seen usage of "MAY NOT" in an RFC.

> - 5.3 page 5: proceudres -> procedures

I will fix as suggested.

> - 5.6.2 page 8: the received-realm rule is not indented as others

I will fix that.

> - 6.2 page 8 and 6.3 page 9: (e.g. -> (e.g., 

I will fix as suggested.