Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12

Joel Halpern <> Fri, 16 December 2016 03:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14E8C129480; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:57:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Joel Halpern <>
Subject: Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:57:28 -0800
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 03:57:28 -0000

Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready with Issues

    This document defines a new code for use in SIP, and specifies new
behavior both for the code itself and for its use in history-info.  I
am thus confused as to how this can be an informational RFC.  It looks
like it either Proposed Standard or experimental.  Yes, I see that RFC
4458, which this updates is Informational.  But just because we did it
wrong before does not make that behavior correct now.  In addition to
my understanding of the roles of different RFCs, I note that RFC 3969
and the IANA registry both state that this assignment must be made by
a standards track RFC.

   Given our emphasis on IPv6 over IPv4, would it not make sense for
the examples to use IPv6 addresses?  (Inspired by the Id-Nits alert.)