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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

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.

Regards,

Christer