[sip-clf] Fwd: AppsDir review of draft-ietf-sipclf-format-05

[Peter Musgrave <[e-mail]>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Claudio Allocchio <[e-mail]>
> Date: January 19, 2012 5:21:29 AM EST
> To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Subject: AppsDir review of draft-ietf-sipclf-format-05
> 
> 
> I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-sipclf-format-05
> Title: Format for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Common Log Format
>       (CLF)
> Reviewer: Claudio Allocchio
> Review Date: 2012-01-18
> IETF Last Call Date: unknown
> IESG Telechat Date: unknown
> 
> NOTE: is there is an IESG telechat which I'm missing, just copy this messae to iesg ML!
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC; it just needs one consideration about a minor issue about an external reference, and fixing some Nits.
> 
> Major Issues:
> 
> NONE
> 
> Minor Issues:
> 
> just one !
> 
> * Section "3. Document Conventions"
> 
> The authors have decided "For the sake of clarity and completeness" to quote a full section of RFC4475 into this document. However there were quite long discussions in the Apps Dir in other reviews if this quoting practice is appropriate or not, because it can lead to discrepacies, when the quoted document is updated or obsoleted, resuing in confusion for the readers who just trust the quoted text without checking the state of the referenced document. I would suggest, as in the other cases, NOT to quote the external text, but to use an explicit external reference only, urging the reader to check that "for the sake of clarity".
> 
> Nits:
> 
> * Section "Copyright Notice"
> 
> change the year to 2012.
> 
> * Section "3. Document Conventions"
> 
> remember to change "formatting rules for Internet-Drafts" into "formatting rules for RFCs" when published.
> 
> * Section "4. Format"
> 
> I do understand that it probably does not fit into the I-D formatting line lenghts, but... maybe an attempt to add aside the SIP CLF record depicted in Figure 1 the grouping described as
> 
>                                 <IndexPointers>
>                                 <MandatoryFields>
>                                 <OptionalFields>
> 
> in the figure 1 itself (on the left?) may help in reading the distinction, and maybe may even not require to repeat portions of the figure itself later in the I-D, like in figure 3, figure 4 and figure 5. It is really a nit and just a suggestion. Not really important.
> 
> What I am suggesting:
> 
>       +----------------------------------+
>      /|                                  |
>     / |                                  |
>   P   |                                  |
>   o   |                                  |
> I i   |                                  |
> n n   |                                  |
> d t   |                                  |
> e e   |                                  |
> x r   |                                  |
>   s   |                                  |
>    \  |                                  |
>      \|                                  |
>       +----------------------------------+
>      /|                                  |
>     / |                                  |
> M     |                                  |
> a F   |                                  |
> n i   |                                  |
> d e   |                                  |
> a l   |                                  |
> t d   |                                  |
> o s   |                                  |
> r     |                                  |
> y  \  |                                  |
>      \|                                  |
>       +----------------------------------+
>      /|                                  |
>     / |                                  |
> O     |                                  |
> p F   |                                  |
> t i   |                                  |
> i e   |                                  |
> o l   |                                  |
> n d   |                                  |
> a s   |                                  |
> l     |                                  |
>    \  |                                  |
>      \|                                  |
>       +----------------------------------+
> 
> * Section "5. Example SIP CLF Record"
> 
> Remember to change "Due to internet-draft conventions" into "Due to RFC conventions" when published (and also "to format it for an RFC" later on...).
> 
> * From the DataTracker ID Nits check tool (References Nits):
> 
>  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5612' is defined on line 984, but no explicit
>     reference was found in the text
> 
>  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
>     draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement (ref.
>     'I-D.ietf-sipclf-problem-statement')
> 
> Comment: the document shepard is aware and has a solution for these nits. Just apply it.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R          [e-mail]
>                        Senior Technical Officer
> tel: [phone]      Italian Academic and       G=Claudio; S=Allocchio;
> fax: [phone]        Research Network         P=garr; A=garr; C=it;
> 
>           PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca