Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-siprec-callflows-07

Hi Jari,

Yes. I just replied to Dan’s comment. Will take care of all of them. Thanks for your review.

Regards,
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Date: Thursday, 1 December 2016 at 7:08 PM
To: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
Cc: <gen-art@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-siprec-callflows.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-siprec-callflows-07
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>, <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Resent-To: <rmohanr@cisco.com>, <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>, <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, <andrew.hutton@unify.com>, <br@brianrosen.net>, <ben@nostrum.com>, <alissa@cooperw.in>, <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, Andrew Hutton <andrew.hutton@unify.com>, <draft-ietf-siprec-callflows.all@ietf.org>
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 05:38:11 -0800

    Thank you very much for your review, Dan. Authors, have you taken a look at Dan’s comments?

    Jari

    On 25 Nov 2016, at 14:16, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> wrote:

    > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
    > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
    > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
    > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
    > 
    > For more information, please see the FAQ at
    > 
    > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
    > 
    > Document:
    > 
    > draft-ietf-siprec-callflows-07
    > 
    > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
    > Review Date: 11/25/16
    > IETF LC End Date: 11/27/16
    > IESG Telechat date: (if known) 12/2/16
    > 
    > Summary: Ready.
    > 
    > This is a very useful supporting document in the SIPREC cluster.
    > 
    > Major issues:
    > 
    > None
    > 
    > Minor issues:
    > 
    > None
    > 
    > 
    > Nits/editorial comments:
    > 
    > 1. The title is slightly misleading, as the document does not have as goal to document all or the most important call flows, but rather to provide a grouping of significant examples. 'Examples of SUP Recording Call Flows' may have been a better title.
    > 
    > 2. As the document uses terminology defined in [RFC7865] and [RFC6341], listing these two RFCs as Normative References seems necessary (can't understand the terms without reading the two RFCs)
    > 
    > 3. typo in the Securoty Considerations section: '
    > 
    > Security considerations mentioned in [RFC7865] and [RFC7866] has to be followed ...
    > 
    > s/has to/have to/
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > Gen-art mailing list
    > Gen-art@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art