Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-18
review-ietf-bliss-call-completion-18-genart-lc-moriarty-2013-01-05-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on

Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<

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



Please wait for direction from your document shepherd

or AD before posting a new version of the draft.



Document: draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-18

Reviewer: Kathleen Moriarty

Review Date: 1/4/13

IETF LC End Date: a while ago

IESG Telechat date: 1/10/13



Summary: The draft is very well written and ready for publication.  I listed a
couple of nits and a possible consideration to add to the security section on
privacy/safety.



Major issues:



Minor issues:



Nits/editorial comments:



Section 3, the definition for CCE is the only one that does not end with a
period, consider adding one.



Security Section, start of second paragraph on page 30 (DoD should be DoS):

Change from: “In order to prevent DoD attacks”

To: “In order to prevent DoS attacks”



In the Security Section, there is mention of privacy issues only in relation to
violations of the expected behavior listed in that section.  I think it would
be helpful to describe some of the possible privacy issues and why you may or
may not want to put in protections in place as safety could be affected.  For
instance, if the options in RFC3261 were used to prevent a subscription (white
list of allowed callers), you may not receive a robo call with emergency
messages from your town, school, etc.  On the other hand, you may want to
prevent others from being subscribers to know when you are at home (too hard to
do with a black list and a white list could block other important calls).  Or
this is just plain tricky…