[sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis-02 ietf last call Artart review

Jim Fenton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 26 May 2025 22:50 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jim Fenton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: art@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <174829980184.1559015.3306249729241359476@dt-datatracker-59b84fc74f-84jsl>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 15:50:01 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: LH5DSDCJLPML3EL5T7G3PJT4OGLZVTBE
CC: draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, sipcore@ietf.org
Reply-To: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
Subject: [sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis-02 ietf last call Artart review
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/sF_IZ2wXFhq3Mezagj9PeORv-qI>

Document: draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis
Title: Updates to Private Header (P-Header) Extension Usage in Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Requests and Responses Reviewer: Jim Fenton Review
result: Ready

I am the designated ARTART reviewer for this draft.

This document is well written and appears to be ready for publication as an
Informational RFC.

Minor issue: I would prefer if the New Text in Section 3 used normative terms
(probably MAY in most cases) for consistency with IETF style. However, the way
it is written is consistent with the wording in Section 5.7 of RFC7315, so this
may be a reason to stick with the current "can" wording. Presumably none of the
named header fields are mandatory in any of the named requests and responses;
if some are, more precise normative terminology is needed.

[sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis-02 ietf l… Jim Fenton via Datatracker