Gen-ART IETF Last Call review for draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-12

Ralph Droms <> Fri, 21 October 2016 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9491B129855; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z3UtriKziCEB; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C08061297D6; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n189so170257691qke.0; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:message-id:date :cc:to; bh=o2hWpeoA+qzzULLGJ1P9v+0Dbu8RiemsfHR274WL3L0=; b=UiEWlToViWTVGzgk15dNhbSJjYeEpH7KykJl5uhgWGssm3tOaNDIUPVyqWKYJhf1hW bIyeaBPs6qyZYB8MdkJ4WjW9y8XB+NqCAXrOF3GpoVQy78/XCS2eLzqaTnx7b/UPUEyS 6S2/O2zsqwjUjLd/ffKdC+kCcZQ46xJRG1As7QIO+3+wiUTBWzPgWpdxJJJWcC8ZV7VP cZ+Lo2n4K0fRt+GkdwgOqVbl7zBtMTGrbZKnrjKCYCJP8YBme5/+ihWIXdKbyjElpFkT p2CbRYHHBNx67iThlm39T7hefjMDA5Klg6TQJw5jrnXJT/eYwulmsL+5bkUIDNTd/ML6 JKuw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:message-id:date:cc:to; bh=o2hWpeoA+qzzULLGJ1P9v+0Dbu8RiemsfHR274WL3L0=; b=dc0maI3Pmlq1Vz1qQ4jLpSjmsbtToFno3HWTeaIT+5KQy5Yhs7TvkBvziGqzSydX6h d1wTf+dPFczm1+DxqQ/cD6aKrEpB8DS6NtHqV2n9wMMIDWuVYXVVnb4iQ2jSWZ/2dDxA 3iMiJwm2v/iKSNMk1tYKAhgDRwrdlNjxLSBdoOCJ5MRL5hzGp4Sg/W4VoxY2abCtOSTB MsahejSWLyaKqlsJCGNW4o4zduFfL25TK3RfCsmM8On4Vc9+DrY8cKjpLDvFNty7JX9I wbg1oDrJ2gtet3QXeI47Q0xIB3wDcaY5KhFrK2T54XOoTUirmP732YifnN9n/mpo9L0S Nerw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvceJEurzuyhP25EdCYmTXiB/a3dNROsuQl6qXEp64Gkp0fSRRQvKEk4OyB9shwnkQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 12mr3131629qkk.209.1477083127853; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18f:801:600:2959:f3d2:5572:38bc? ([2601:18f:801:600:2959:f3d2:5572:38bc]) by with ESMTPSA id u44sm2284994qtu.5.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ralph Droms <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.0 \(3226\))
Subject: Gen-ART IETF Last Call review for draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-12
Message-Id: <>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:52:06 -0400
To: "Review Area Team" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3226)
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 20:52:11 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-12. The
General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being
processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments
just like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at 


Document: draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-12
Reviewer: Ralph Droms
Review Date: 2016-10-21
IETF LC End Date:  2016-10-06
IESG Telechat date: 2016-11-03

Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard

I apologize for the late submission of this review.

I am not well-versed in either SIP or XMPP, so I could only give the
technical content of the document a cursory review.  I found no
issues to report in that review.

I'll make two small editorial suggestions:

1) There are possibly anachronistic references to "this series" of
documents.  The members of that "series" will be less obvious with the
publication of rfc7248bis.  It would likely be helpful to list the
members of the document series explicitly.

2) It might be useful to add a short section on the history of the
document, to give readers of this document an understanding of the
motivation for the publication of 7248bis.

- Ralph Droms