[sipcore] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-callinfo-spam-04: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 30 September 2019 10:14 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-sipcore-callinfo-spam@ietf.org, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>, sipcore-chairs@ietf.org, br@brianrosen.net, sipcore@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <156983848749.460.11029361799621342593.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 03:14:47 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/_rQnUqHDLQDl672SWG26XseVesI>
Subject: [sipcore] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-callinfo-spam-04: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sipcore-callinfo-spam-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-callinfo-spam/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find a couple of COMMENTs
and NITs below.

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 1 --
C.1) I suggest to remove or explain "blue pages" as it probably a USA thing (I
have no clue what are those pages being based in Belgium).

-- Section 4 --
C.2) the word "probability" is used with a range of 0 to 100. This is somehow
confusing as the word "probability" has a mathematical definition which is not
applicable here, "confidence" or "certainty' could be a better wording.

C.3) using an IP address as the source may not be very useful for most
applications/users/consumers of this header. Why not having a FQDN as a MUST?

-- Section 5 --
C.4) In the first paragraph, I cannot figure out how to both have "Other
strings may be used" and "Additional labels are registered with IANA." in the
same paragraph.

-- Section 6.2 --
C.5) is there a reason why "http" is used rather than "https" ?

== NITS ==

-- Section 5 --
N.1) in the enumeration of labels, adding a ":" after the label would improve
the readability.

-- Section 8.1 --
The table is misaligned.

[sipcore] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-iet… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker