Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-sipping-toip-08.txt

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:12:39 -0500

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-ietf-sipping-toip-08.txt

For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Summary: This draft is well written and is almost ready for publication, 
but I have a couple of comments.

* The term modality is used in the document but it has not been defined. 
The meaning I perceive from this document does not match with the normal 
English usage of "modality". I think the document uses this word to 
describe the way in which the TOIP device interacts with human. This 
needs to be clearly stated.

* I do not have strong feelings regarding this, but I feel that using 
RFC2119 terminology in this document is inappropriate given that the 
document is aiming to be an Informational RFC.

* Section 5.2.1: I think requirement R5 is redundant given requirement 
R6. Is there any use case that is covered by R5 and not by R6?

* Section 5.2.2: Why is there a requirement for maximum delay per 
character? A character by itself is not useful. I would think setting 
the delay per word makes more sense, since this is the smallest 
comprehensible text unit.

* Section 5.2.4: I am not clear what this requirement means. Can we add 
more specific text to this one.

"R31: Users MUST be presented with appropriate session progress
  information at all times."

* Section 5.2.4: I think this requirement has enormous privacy 
implications. This needs to be explicitly stated.

"R35: It SHOULD be possible to save the text portion of a conversation."

Cheers
Suresh

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf