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

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.

We have lots of extensions that only make sense to the devices that 
implement the extension. Everything else ignores it. That's what the 
extension in this document is doing.

RjS

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:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] 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
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art