Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mediactrl-call-flows-13
review-ietf-mediactrl-call-flows-13-genart-lc-carpenter-2013-08-25-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mediactrl-call-flows |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 13) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2013-09-03 | |
| Requested | 2013-08-22 | |
| Authors | Alessandro Amirante , Tobia Castaldi , Lorenzo Miniero , Simon Pietro Romano | |
| I-D last updated | 2013-08-25 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -13
by Brian E. Carpenter
Genart Telechat review of -13 by Brian E. Carpenter |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Brian E. Carpenter |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-mediactrl-call-flows by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 13 | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2013-08-25 |
review-ietf-mediactrl-call-flows-13-genart-lc-carpenter-2013-08-25-00
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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-mediactrl-call-flows-13.txt (Informational) Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2013-08-26 IETF LC End Date: 2013-09-13 IESG Telechat date: Summary: Ready -------- Comment: -------- This is a massive (175pp) and highly specialised document, for which a generalist review is pretty much useless. I have not checked the example flows, XML extracts, etc. IMHO, we have to trust the authors and the WG in a case like this. The document is clear and where I have sampled the text in the examples it is up to standard. Editorial: ---------- There are a few abbreviations (AS, MS, CFW) that could usefully be included in the Terminology section. Also, AS is widely used in the IETF to mean Autonomous System. Some readers might be confused at first, so this should be stated very clearly. "Mealy automaton" (section 4.1) needs a reference. Or it might be sufficient just to say "finite state automaton."