Last Call Review of draft-ietf-siprec-callflows-07
review-ietf-siprec-callflows-07-genart-lc-romascanu-2016-12-01-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-siprec-callflows |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2016-11-27 | |
Requested | 2016-10-27 | |
Authors | Ram R , Parthasarathi Ravindran , Paul Kyzivat | |
I-D last updated | 2016-12-01 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -07
by Dan Romascanu
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Derek Atkins (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Carlos Pignataro (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Dan Romascanu |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-siprec-callflows by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2016-12-01 |
review-ietf-siprec-callflows-07-genart-lc-romascanu-2016-12-01-00
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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-siprec-callflows-07 Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review Date: 11/25/16 IETF LC End Date: 11/27/16 IESG Telechat date: (if known) 12/2/16 Summary: Ready. This is a very useful supporting document in the SIPREC cluster. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: 1. The title is slightly misleading, as the document does not have as goal to document all or the most important call flows, but rather to provide a grouping of significant examples. 'Examples of SUP Recording Call Flows' may have been a better title. 2. As the document uses terminology defined in [RFC7865] and [RFC6341], listing these two RFCs as Normative References seems necessary (can't understand the terms without reading the two RFCs) 3. typo in the Securoty Considerations section: ' Security considerations mentioned in [RFC7865] and [RFC7866] has to be followed ... s/has to/have to/