[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-01

<david.black@emc.com> Wed, 13 July 2011 00:46 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C71711E80CA; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oytjx0Qq8X0G; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C7A11E807D; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI02.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.55]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p6D0kWGv025793 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:46:32 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd03.lss.emc.com [10.254.221.145]) by hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:46:25 -0400
Received: from mxhub02.corp.emc.com (mxhub02.corp.emc.com [10.254.141.104]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p6D0ix58000649; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:45:00 -0400
Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.245]) by mxhub02.corp.emc.com ([10.254.141.104]) with mapi; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:45:00 -0400
From: david.black@emc.com
To: jmpolk@cisco.com, gen-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:44:54 -0400
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-01
Thread-Index: AcxA9hUNwavoqEelQfeUxmCy5d9fyw==
Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E058941360C@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-01
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:46:38 -0000

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-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-01
Reviewer: David L. Black
Review Date: July 12, 2011
IETF LC End Date: July 13, 2011

Summary:
This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication.

This draft defines a SIP Resource Priority header namespace, "esnet", for use in
providing preferential treatment to emergency calls (e.g., from on-scene responders).

This field is an addition to rather than a replacement for existing notions of
priority in the SIP Resource Priority header.  Section 2 explains why this was
done, but section 2 is a bit sloppy and imprecise.  Some level of imprecision is
necessary as this draft deliberately does not specify how this header namespace
is used to provide preferential treatment.  Nonetheless, the following two items
could be improved in Section 2's discussion:

1) Explain the reason for including the second paragraph, the paragraph
	that references RFC 4412's discouragement of modification of priorities
	within an administrative domain.  That paragraph's not connected to the
	rest of section 2.
2) Explicitly state that one of the anticipated uses of the priorities in the
	esnet namespace is to override the ordinary priorities found elsewhere in
	the Resource Priority header.

Small nit: There's an extraneous "to" in the first line of section 3:

   The "esnet" namespace should not to be considered generic for all
                                    ^^

idnits 2.12.12 found a few formatting problems:

  == You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from
     12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009.  (See
     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/)

  == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form
     feeds but 7 pages

  == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
     match the current year


Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
david.black@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------