Last Call Review of draft-ietf-asap-siptrunkingcapability-link-03
review-ietf-asap-siptrunkingcapability-link-03-opsdir-lc-clarke-2023-03-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-asap-siptrunkingcapability-link
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2023-03-22
Requested 2023-03-08
Authors Kaustubh Inamdar , Sreekanth Narayanan , Derek Engi , Gonzalo Salgueiro
I-D last updated 2023-03-10
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Christopher A. Wood (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -03 by Tim Bray (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Joe Clarke (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joe Clarke
State Completed
Review review-ietf-asap-siptrunkingcapability-link-03-opsdir-lc-clarke-2023-03-10
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/kfSkeaNY0XpYaqLH1eKipE0EwbE
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 05)
Result Has nits
Completed 2023-03-10
review-ietf-asap-siptrunkingcapability-link-03-opsdir-lc-clarke-2023-03-10-00
I have been tasked to review this document on behalf of the OPS directorate. 
This document describes a means by which link relationships may be used to
advertise SIP trunking capabilities for an ITSP.  The document is short, sweet,
to the point, and clear.  Overall, I had one question and a small nit.

In section 3, it is stated that an ITSP may use an authentication framework...

Should this language be stronger and normative?  That is, should this be a
SHOULD?  Or perhaps this is best left to the document on the capability set
document.  As it stands now, it felt like an aside as I read it.

My nit is that in the example href, should the URL be
https://capserver.ssp1.example.com?