[Gen-art] Last Call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification-00
Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Thu, 18 June 2015 01:15 UTC
Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB13B1A8979; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Fr-_BZjMyca; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x234.google.com (mail-ig0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3810D1A8978; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igboe5 with SMTP id oe5so7034905igb.1; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dCITvoV3pDLi5ZMOzuRIS36GDnq6oGAibIHm5KsdYSw=; b=Wi3v9R5sSQfjx8NOtIO6hQo6rzLMstQSyrQt5k/iMEGyYG+oddfTNxnLXjAxJ52AIN ArQAtEo0SiC8ckr4aAY/VTKarFXSg4VBMjSDdbMUHv1ra2NfK9BBEGQkM5OFTt0Re15/ KE9wgzqKF2ZEGTxMghMpamTTyGa76QFud8Z75Ts+LjtbDQhTALgFB4W4AjhJmfF/yGF5 /3ErMC0TBR9Jqwvc2f+WxOOeyNU3fZ9ma2Yk8CYmFdxNWRjyBLgjcEvVlSFEosMcJdi0 pXmtstfAox7GCfEi6M9NlLNtDzxdz/IfLzxf+aVI8edmWzFLyXuU1PpF2bP/llR3DD1M 5NyQ==
X-Received: by 10.43.8.4 with SMTP id oq4mr3146615icb.64.1434590157721; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.135] (dsl-173-206-92-151.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.92.151]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m193sm3813958iom.19.2015.06.17.18.15.56 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55821BCA.5080809@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:15:54 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, sipcore-chairs@ietf.org, Gen Art <gen-art@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/prM3KnsmH_4kPWeyww8aGDXDOHY>
Subject: [Gen-art] Last Call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification-00
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 01:16:00 -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-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification-00 Reviewer: Tom Taylor Review Date: 17 June 2015 IETF LC End Date: 17 June 2015 IESG Telechat date: 25 June 2015 Summary: This is a very short document expanding on a sentence in RFC 6665 to make clear the requirements surrounding use of GRUUs in the SIP event framework. It is probably good to go except for a minor issue of terminology that needs clarification. The reviewer apologizes for not being current on that terminology if it is a matter of common usage. Major issues: None. Minor issues: The term "local target" is used in the text (and in RFC 6665. RFC 3261 speaks of a remote target, but not a local one. In which document is "local target" defined? Nits/editorial comments: None.
- [Gen-art] Last Call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-… Tom Taylor
- Re: [Gen-art] Last Call review of draft-ietf-sipc… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Gen-art] Last Call review of draft-ietf-sipc… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] Last Call review of draft-ietf-sipc… Jari Arkko