Last Call Review of draft-ietf-clue-signaling-13
review-ietf-clue-signaling-13-genart-lc-sparks-2018-10-12-00

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-clue-signaling-13
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2018-10-12
IETF LC End Date: 2018-10-17
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready for publication as PS with nits

This document specifies a specific ASN.1 Identifier for sip.clue (see section
11.2). Did you go through some kind of early reservation process for this? If
not, you've gotten very lucky that something else didn't step on the value.

There are several places where the document uses SHOULD where it's not
immediately clear why it didn't use MUST.

Some of those SHOULDs are probably better written around with prose. For
example, in the first paragraph of 4.5.1, I think you're trying say "If the
CLUE capable device wants to use CLUE it will..."

The MUST in the last paragraph of section 4.5.4.4 is probably also better as
"will". There are lots of other reasons for a device to discontinue media. As
written, this is oddly overconstraining.

The "MAY or MAY NOT" at the end of 7.1 is a bad use of 2119. Lower case
versions of the word here will not introduce protocol ambiguity.

Section 7.2 says this specification imposes no additional constraints on the
usage of BUNDLE, but then goes on to aplly a MUST NOT in 7.2.1. This is another
place where you probably want to avoid 2119, and instead say "don't do this if
you want to avoid inefficiency".

"O/A" appears without definition at the top of page 20.

I did not review the bits in the examples carefully.