Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sipcore-originating-cdiv-parameter-05
review-ietf-sipcore-originating-cdiv-parameter-05-genart-lc-gurbani-2018-10-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-sipcore-originating-cdiv-parameter
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-10-26
Requested 2018-10-12
Other Reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Will LIU (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Vijay Gurbani
Review review-ietf-sipcore-originating-cdiv-parameter-05-genart-lc-gurbani-2018-10-29
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/XjQL71ermyaXzgyNo2VtO_lnxno
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 08)
Review result Almost Ready
Draft last updated 2018-10-29
Review completed: 2018-10-29

Review
review-ietf-sipcore-originating-cdiv-parameter-05-genart-lc-gurbani-2018-10-29

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-sipcore-originating-cdiv-parameter-??
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 2018-10-29
IETF LC End Date: 2018-10-26
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review.

Major issues: 0

Minor issues: 1 

Nits/editorial comments: 1

Minor:

- S1.3: I am not sure I follow the logic in the problem statement.  Who
 is the "diverting" user?  The user to who the call was destined?  If so,
 best to say that explicitly.  (To be sure, I looked into rfc5502 as well,
 and it does not define "diverting" user either.)  A bit below (in S4), you  
 use the term "served" user to refer to the diverting user.  All in all, the  
 terminology here could be refined.  I suspect that the "originating" user 
 is the callee.  

 Concretely, I think that the first paragraph of S1.3 should be re-written,
 perhaps with a figure (?) to explain the call flow, or at least some
 context using Alice, Bob and Carol as the example in S7.1 does (I suspect
 that Carol is the "diverting" user here).

Nits, typos:

- S4, step 3: s/user an INVITE that/user as an INVITE that/
 Also, the "secase" and "regstate" parameters are what you are standardizing
 this I-D, as such you mention this before S4 so the reader knows that 
 these are the new parameters.  Same for "orig-cdiv" parameter.