Extending the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Reason Header for Preemption Events
draft-ietf-sipping-reason-header-for-preemption-04

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) Yes

(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection

doc: draft-ietf-sipping-reason-header-for-preemption-04.txt

  !! Missing citation for Normative reference:
  P018 L028:  [2] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,

doc: draft-ietf-sip-resource-priority-10.txt

  !! Missing citation for Informative reference:
  P034 L015:    [RFC3324]  Watson, M., "Short Term Requirements for
     Network Asserted

Mmmm...
14.1  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-sipping-reason-header-for-preemption]
              Polk, J., "Extending the Session Initiation Protocol
              Reason Header for Preemption  Events",
              draft-ietf-sipping-reason-header-for-preemption-02 (work
              in progress), August 2004.

While rev 04 is on this ballot. Oh well.

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection

(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

  Section 9 of draft-ietf-sip-resource-priority-10 says:
  >
  > There should not be a unique namespace for different jurisdictions.
  > This will greatly increase interoperability and reduce development
  > time, and probably reduce future confusion if there is ever a need
  > to map one namespace to another in an interworking function.
  >
  I find this wording misleading.  I propose:
  >
  > There should be a single namespace for all jurisdictions. This will
  > greatly increase interoperability and reduce development time, and
  > probably reduce future confusion if there is ever a need to map one
  > namespace to another in an interworking function.

  Please correct the typo in section 11.4 of
  draft-ietf-sip-resource-priority-10:
  > 
  > The authentication may be based on capabilities and noms, ...
  
  Please ensure that "S/MIME" is not split across line breaks.

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection