Last Call Review of draft-ietf-simple-chat-

Request Review of draft-ietf-simple-chat
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-02-06
Requested 2012-01-25
Authors Aki Niemi, Miguel GarcĂ­a, Geir Sandbakken
Draft last updated 2012-02-16
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Christer Holmberg
Genart Last Call review of -?? by Suresh Krishnan
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Suresh Krishnan
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Vincent Roca
Secdir Telechat review of -?? by Vincent Roca
Tsvdir Last Call review of -?? by Cullen Jennings
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-simple-chat-genart-lc-holmberg-2012-02-16
Review completed: 2012-02-16


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on 
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive.

Document:                  draft-ietf-simple-chat-13
Reviewer:                   Christer Holmberg
Review Date:              12-02.11
IETF LC End Date:     12-02-06
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:          Ready, but some additional text may be needed based on the minor issues.

Major issues:     None

Minor issues:

- The second paragraph of section 7.1 says that a NICKNAME request MUST contain a Use-Nickname header, but in the sixth paragraph the inclusion is a SHOULD.

- It is not clearly indicated whether the Use-Nickname header is allowed for other methods than NICKNAME.

- Section 8 does not specify whether there are SDP offer/answer considerations/restrictions associated with the new attribute. For example: 
-- Must the attribute tokens in an answer be a subset of the tokens in an offer?
-- Can an SDP answer contain an attribute if the offer didn't?
-- If a user sends a new SDP offer within a session, can the token values be modified? What does it mean if the attribute is not present in a new SDP offer?

Nits/editorial comments:

- Sometimes the document talks about "multi-party chat", "multi-party conference", "conference", and "chat room". Would it be possible to use more consistant terminology?

- Requirements
-- REQ-4: Isn't this requirement already covered by REQ-3?
-- REQ-6: Change "progress" to "duration" or "length".

- There is no definition/reference for "roster".