Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer-32
review-ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer-32-opsdir-lc-linkova-2025-09-17-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 41)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2025-09-25
Requested 2025-09-12
Requested by Mohamed Boucadair
Authors Kaustubh Inamdar , Sreekanth Narayanan , Cullen Fluffy Jennings
I-D last updated 2026-08-11 (Latest revision 2026-01-20)
Completed reviews Tsvart Telechat review of -20 by Joerg Ott (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -16 by Dan Harkins (diff)
Artart Telechat review of -21 by Harald T. Alvestrand (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -18 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Yangdoctors Telechat review of -23 by Ebben Aries (diff)
Artart Telechat review of -23 by Harald T. Alvestrand (diff)
Yangdoctors IETF Last Call review of -30 by Ebben Aries (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -32 by Jen Linkova (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jen Linkova
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/Xvivlac97iy_QRXw7o3KZSXikdM
Reviewed revision 32 (document currently at 41)
Result Ready
Completed 2025-09-17
review-ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer-32-opsdir-lc-linkova-2025-09-17-00
This document specifies a mechanism enabling enterprise SIP networks to request
a set of operational parameters from a SIP provider. The resulting list of
parameters can be used to automate the configuration of the SIP peering
interface between the enterprise and the SIP provider networks.

This document is notably clear and easy to understand, even for those less
familiar with SIP.  I would specifically commend the authors for clearly
explaining the terminology and providing corresponding references.

The proposed mechanism seems to be rather useful for operating SIP networks,
especially as it promotes automation and reduces chances of human errors.

I believe the document is ready for publication. I do not really have any
comments, except for two minor questions (more for my own curiousity) and a few
nits:

Questions, both related to Section 5:

1. is it intentional that "recommended" is a lower-case?

2. With my limited SIP background, I apologize if this is an obvious question,
but..

Could a SIP operator ever make a change to the capability set that would demand
an update to enterprise networks faster than the current predefined interval
allows, or is that scenario highly improbable?  If such scenario is possible,
was the possibility of including the recommended polling frequency within the
capability set itself considered?

Nits:

Section 2.1
"Call Control within a telephony networks refers to software that is
responsible for delivering its core functionality. "

Does "its" in "its core functionality" refers to "telephony network"? I guess
so, but I found that phrase a  bit hard to parse, so maybe "for delivering the
core telephony functions" or smth like that?

Section 2.3

"The capability set document is constructed according the guidelines of the
YANG model described in this draft."

I think it should be 'according to the guidelines':
"The capability set document is constructed according to the guidelines of the
YANG model described in this draft."