Last Call Review of draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates-07
review-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates-07-genart-lc-droms-2016-07-06-00

Request Review of draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-07-18
Requested 2016-06-20
Draft last updated 2016-07-06
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Ralph Droms (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Ralph Droms (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Steve Hanna (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ralph Droms
State Completed
Review review-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates-07-genart-lc-droms-2016-07-06
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 09)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2016-07-06

Review
review-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates-07-genart-lc-droms-2016-07-06

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area

Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed

by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just

like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates-07

Reviewer: Ralph Droms

Review Date: 2016-07-05

IETF LC End Date: 2016-07-18

IESG Telechat date: <unknown>

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication.

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

I had some difficulty unraveling the relationship among the text in section 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 4 and RFC 7315.  Section 3.3.2 specifies the inclusion of the NPLI option in the P-Access-Network-Info header field.  Section 4 does not include text about the NPLI option in the updates to RFC 7315, and I can't find any reference to the NPLI option in RFC 7315.  Is the intention that the text in section 3.3.2 constitutes new Internet Standard behavior, not reflected in the update to RFC 7315, am I missing something or am I completely confused?

Section 3.3.3 specifies the inclusion of the IOI option in the P-Charging-Vector header field.  In this case, I am not sure if this specification represents a change to  existing text in RFC 7315 or new behavior.

I would be happy to hear that I am completely confused; otherwise, I suggest some text be added to clarify that sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 also specify some behaviors in addition to explaining the text in section 4.

Nits/editorial comments:

In section 3.2, it would reduce potential confusion to consistently name the header field referenced in each bullet; e.g.:

OLD:

  o  P-Called-Party-ID: Delete statement that the header field can

     appear in SIP responses.  Add statement that the P-Called-Party-ID

     header field can appear in the SIP REFER method.

NEW:

  o  P-Called-Party-ID: Delete statement that the P-Called-Party-ID

     header field can appear in SIP responses.  Add statement that

     the P-Called-Party-ID header field can appear in the SIP REFER method.

Section 3.3.1:

OLD:

  This following sections describe, for individual P- header fields,

  the 3GPP use-cases that are base for the updates.

NEW:

  The following sections describe, for individual P- header fields,

  the 3GPP use-cases that are the basis for the updates.

Section 3.3.2: uniformly capitalize "Network Provided Location Information".

Section 3.3.2: 3GPP TS 23.228 needs a citation of the referenced document.