Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-siprec-callflows-07

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


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

IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD

during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these

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




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.


   Security considerations mentioned in [RFC7865] and [RFC7866] has to

   be followed by SRC and SRS for setting up RS SIP dialog and sending


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.


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.


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.



Carlos Pignataro,

carlos at

“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound
more photosynthesis."