Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-saintandre-impp-call-info-02

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

Hi Elwyn, thanks for the review.

On Apr 23, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-saintandre-impp-call-info-02.txt
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review Date: 23 April 2013
> IETF LC End Date: 14 May 2013
> IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
>
> Summary: Ready.  See the generic issue with the IANA registry  
> mentioned below.
>
> Major issues: None
>
> Minor issues: None
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
> Generic comment about SIP Header Field Parameters registry: For the  
> uninitiated this registry is rather opaque.  Some parameters, such  
> as the Call-Info purpose parameter for which an extra value is  
> defined here, have predefined values.  However the predefined values  
> themselves are not in the registry and just giving a whole RFC  
> reference for places where values are defined is not very helpful.  
> For example, in the case of Call-Info, the initial predefined values  
> of purpose are buried in the Call-Info rule in the ABNF in Section  
> 25.1 of RFC 3261;  also, Section 20.9 describes the predefined  
> values (such as "icon") as 'parameters' rather than values of  
> 'purpose'.  It would probably be helpful to either improve the  
> references in the registry table or actaully quote the possible  
> predefined values in the table.
>

I agree, but as you say that's an issue with the SIP Header Field  
Parameters registry in general. I started to go down the path of  
fixing the registry as a whole, but I think I'd rather leave that for  
3261bis to tackle (sometime before the heat death of the universe).

Peter