Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push-21
review-ietf-sipcore-sip-push-21-genart-lc-bryant-2018-12-19-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 29) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2018-12-21 | |
Requested | 2018-12-07 | |
Authors | Christer Holmberg , Michael Arnold | |
I-D last updated | 2018-12-19 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -21
by Scott G. Kelly
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -21 by Stewart Bryant (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Stewart Bryant |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 21 (document currently at 29) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2018-12-19 |
review-ietf-sipcore-sip-push-21-genart-lc-bryant-2018-12-19-00
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-sipcore-sip-push-21 Reviewer: Stewart Bryant Review Date: 2018-12-19 IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-21 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: A well written document with some minor points that could use a little attention. Major issues: None Minor issues: In Figure 1 the following is included: REGISTER sip:alice@example.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/TCP alicemobile.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7 Max-Forwards: 70 To: Alice <sip:alice@example.com> From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>;tag=456248 Call-ID: 843817637684230@998sdasdh09 CSeq: 1826 REGISTER Contact: <sip:alice@alicemobile.example.com; pn-provider=acme; pn-param=acme-param; pn-prid=ZTY4ZDJlMzODE1NmUgKi0K> Expires: 7200 Content-Length: 0 SB> However I don't at this stage of the text see the relationship between the packet flow digram and the text that follows. ========= Contact: IESG (iesg@ietf.org) SB> Is the whole IESG the most appropriate first point of contact? ========= Nits/editorial comments: Presumably the references to RFC XXXX will be replaced by RFC <this RFC> but that does not seem to be noted in the text ======== As dicussed in [RFC4320] and [RFC4321], non-INVITE transactions must SB> Typo s/dicussed/discussed/ ======== Example: pn-prid = 00fc13adff78512 For more information about the APNs Topic and device token: SB> Is the following part of the example? If so it could usefully be delimited as SB> such, otherwise, I don't understand why it is not a normal document SB> reference. https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/NetworkingI nternet/Conceptual/RemoteNotificationsPG/CommunicatingwithAPNs.html SB> Similarly in the following section =========