Re: [Gen-art] Fwd: Gen-art LC review: draft-holmerg-dispatch-iotl-03.txt

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

On 1/7/15 8:58 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
>> Your changes below are fine.
>>
>> I added Paul and Richard because of their involvement in adding the 3gpp text.
>>
>> I'm not ok with the 3gpp scope as written.
>> It makes no sense to claim this is a proposed standard for the Internet and say "it's not defined for any part of the Internet that's not 3gpp".
>> I would expect most of the IESG to have the same reaction.
>>
>> It would be different, and less objectionable, to say "it's not likely to be particularly useful anywhere but in a 3GPP network".
>>
>> I still think you should just remove last paragraph of the introduction, and section 2 altogether.
> I assume that we then also have to remove "3rd-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)" from the title?
I'm less uptight about that. That helps say "it's not likely to be 
particularly useful anywhere but in a 3GPP network".

Even P-headers, back in the day, were not "undefined outside the private 
network".
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
> On 1/7/15 3:11 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> Are you ok with the suggested changes?
>>
>> I suggest that we don't change the 3GPP scope. It would delay the draft, and nobody has shown any interest for non-3GPP usage.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gen-art [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Christer
>> Holmberg
>> Sent: 19. joulukuuta 2014 16:10
>> To: Robert Sparks; General Area Review Team
>> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Fwd: Gen-art LC review:
>> draft-holmerg-dispatch-iotl-03.txt
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>>>
>>>>> Since you are providing an extension point for other values,
>>>>> someone will ask if you need a registry for those values. I suggest
>>>>> explicitly saying we are not creating a registry at this time but
>>>>> expect to do so if the extension point is ever used to head that conversation off.
>>>> I could add the following text to the Syntax/General section:
>>>>
>>>> 	"This specification does not create an IANA registry for 'iotl' parameter values.
>>>> 	If new parameters values are defined in the future, such registry needs to be
>>>> 	created."
>>>>
>>>> Or, do you think it should be somewhere else?
>>> It's fine there. However, I would change the last sentence to "A registry should be considered if new parameter values are defined in the future".
>> Ok.
>>
>> 	"This specification does not create an IANA registry for 'iotl' parameter values.
>>    	A registry should be considered if new parameter values are defined in the future"
>>
>> ---------------
>>
>>>>> The sentence (which occurs in the abstract and introduction) "The
>>>>> directionality in traffic legs relates to a SIP request creating a
>>>>> dialogue and stand-alone SIP request." does not parse. What is it
>>>>> trying to say, and why is it important?
>>>> The sentence is not needed (and it doesn't belong in the Abstract to begin with), so I suggest to remove it.
>>> You'll remove it from the introduction as well?
>> Yes.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gen-art mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art