Last Call Review of draft-ietf-siprec-callflows-07
review-ietf-siprec-callflows-07-opsdir-lc-pignataro-2016-11-08-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-siprec-callflows |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2016-11-27 | |
Requested | 2016-11-03 | |
Authors | Ram R , Parthasarathi Ravindran , Paul Kyzivat | |
I-D last updated | 2016-11-08 | |
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 | Carlos Pignataro |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-siprec-callflows by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Has issues | |
Completed | 2016-11-08 |
review-ietf-siprec-callflows-07-opsdir-lc-pignataro-2016-11-08-00
Hi! I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Summary: Ready with Minor Comments and Nits This document describes the SIP call flows to perform call recording, including metadata snapshots, from a SIP client to a session recording ser Major: None. Minor: 1. No Normative References. I am surprised to see there is nothing that needs to be understood from other RFCs in order to make sense of this one. Sentences like: The terms using in this document are defined in [RFC7865] and [RFC6341]. No new definitions are introduced in this document. and Security considerations mentioned in [RFC7865] and [RFC7866] has to be followed by SRC and SRS for setting up RS SIP dialog and sending metadata. Seem to support the fact that some of these RFCs need to be referenced Normatively instead of Informationally. 2. This is an editorial but for clarity. The figures in Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2, etc. include two separate things: A call-flow line, and a message contents. These should be two separate figures with appropriate legends, for clarity. Nits: There is an Unused Reference: == Unused Reference: 'RFC6230' is defined on line 1405, but no explicit reference was found in the text There are some grammatical nits that should be fixed, e.g.: 2. Terminology The terms using in this document are defined in [RFC7865] and [RFC6341]. No new definitions are introduced in this document. “used" 3. Metadata XML Instances The following sub-sections has examples showing the metadata snapshot sent from SRC to SRS. In all these use-cases, the SRC is a B2BUA. “have”, “contain”. Also, “B2BUA” (Back-to-Back User Agent) needs to be expanded on use (or added to the Terminology section. Best, — Carlos Pignataro, carlos at cisco.com “Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis."