3GPP SIP URI Inter-Operator Traffic Leg Parameter
RFC 7549

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2015-02-04 for -04)
No email
send info
I didn't figure out that the values were an enumerated set until Section 5/page 7. That's not horrible, but I'd think it would be easier for first-time readers if you said something like 
    
    This draft defines the following iotl values: 

    o "homeA-homeB" 
    o "homeB-visitedB" 
    o "visitedA-homeA"
    o "homeA-visitedA" 
    o "visitedA-homeB" 

early in the document. Not a big deal, just a suggestion. Note that I'm a Yes.

(While typing this, I noticed that " visitedA-homeB" had a leading space in the ABNF. I'm not wizard enough to know whether that matters, so I thought I'd ask before AUTH48 ...)

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-02-04 for -04)
No email
send info
This text appears in both Sections 1 and 2, but only needs to be stated once:
"The SIP URI 'iotl' parameter defined in this document has known uses
   in 3GPP networks.  Usage in other networks is also possible."
   
In Section 7:
s/The information/The information in the iotl parameter/

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-02-04 for -04)
No email
send info
In Sections 5.2 and 6.2, you always show the parameter values in specific case, such as "homeA-homeB", though they're case-insensitive, and could just as well be presented as "homea-homeb" or "HOMEA-HOMEB".  I wonder whether it's worth reminding readers of that with a sentence in Section 6.2, just to avoid bad implementations.  Or is that simply a well-enough-known thing in SIP that it's not worth bothering?

And the error in the ABNF that Spencer points out does matter, and needs to be fixed.  I have every confidence that it will be.

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-02-04 for -04)
No email
send info
While reading through the draft I wondered a few times: "but what does iotl stand for?"
Maybe I'm stupid, maybe I simply didn't pay enough attention to the document title, or maybe I should stop reading drafts late at night, but a simple reference to "Inter Operator Traffic Leg", next to iotl, somewhere in the intro would have helped me. Thanks Richard for showing me the light :-)

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-02-05 for -04)
No email
send info
There has been a discussion of changes with respect to a Gen-ART review by Robert Sparks. It would be good to ensure that this discussion is finished and the necessary changes are folded in, before the draft is approved.

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-02-04 for -04)
No email
send info
Thanks for your work on this draft, I just have one question:

Should this draft have a reference to either the framework or a base SIP RFC that describes security and privacy considerations?

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2015-02-12 for -05)
No email
send info
Thanks for handling my (pretty vague:-) discuss


--- OLD Comments below, I didn't check if changes resulted
or not, happy to chat about it if you want.

- As usual, I dislike that we're making special assumptions
about 3gpp networks. I think any stuff like this is liable to
leak over so saying "just 3gpp" should not be a get out of
jail card.

- section 3 does not actually define any uses for the iotl
parameter but simply repeats page 4 as far as I can see.

- 5.1, last para: I don't get how the "must not" there doesn't
apply here and say that this entire idea is busted - can you
explain?

- section 7: the 2119 terms here are bogus.

(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info