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

Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com> Tue, 23 April 2013 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <elwynd@dial.pipex.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 E567521F93BA for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JmmyPWKoDvBM for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mk-outboundfilter-6.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-outboundfilter-6.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B00C21F93AA for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Trace: 564765862/mk-outboundfilter-6.mail.uk.tiscali.com/PIPEX/$OFF_NET_AUTH_ACCEPTED/None/87.192.231.145/None/elwynd@dial.pipex.com
X-SBRS: None
X-RemoteIP: 87.192.231.145
X-IP-MAIL-FROM: elwynd@dial.pipex.com
X-SMTP-AUTH: elwynd@dial.pipex.com
X-MUA: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1
X-IP-BHB: Once
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBAM/qdlFXwOeR/2dsb2JhbAANRIM8vk2BG4NSQAEoBw0WGAMCAQIBSw0BBwEBiByrJ4MyjzSPKINQA5cagSOEVjaDYIod
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,537,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="564765862"
X-IP-Direction: OUT
Received: from unknown (HELO [10.1.0.238]) ([87.192.231.145]) by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 23 Apr 2013 21:12:53 +0100
Message-ID: <5176EB42.3030501@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:12:50 +0100
From: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: fluffy@cisco.com, adam@nostrum.com, Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>, mary.barnes@nortel.com, draft-saintandre-impp-call-info.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-saintandre-impp-call-info-02
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: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:13:01 -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-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.