Subject: [Sipping] Review: draft-ietf-gruu-reg-event-03

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 18:47:17 -0500

Hi all,

Just an upfront note that this is an example of the sorts of reviews
that I mentioned we were going to do within the working group to try to
ensure we adequately review docs before they leave the working group.  

This review is obviously much later than we would like, since it's post
WGLC. Ideally, the reviewers would have been assigned fairly soon after
the document became a WG document.  
We're still working through the details of the process, but hope to have
something preliminary available within the next week or so. The idea is
to keep a spreadsheet available with all the active WG documents with
their key review dates and assigned reviewers.  An important note is
that we're not at all proposing to replace the current model whereby
anyone in the WG is very much welcome to provide feedback - this is just
to ensure that we get a core minimum of folks to focus on the document
and will give other WG members an idea of the timeframe during which
comments should be provided to the author. 

So, rather than hold Paul's draft up any longer, we wanted to run this
one through a lightweight version of the process.  There should be one
other reviewer providing feedback (and once we have the spreadsheet
available, you'd all be able to see who they are :)

Mary.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------- 
Draft:  draft-ietf-gruu-reg-event-03
Reviewer: Brian Stucker, Mary Barnes
Review Date: 7 April 2006
Review Deadline: 7 April 2006
Status: post WGLC (pre-IESG)

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, there is one
question for clarification and there are nits that should be fixed
before publication.

Question:
---------
- A question on the XML example from section 7:

The "allOneLine" tags for the sip.instance parameter only enclose the
CDATA of the "unknown-param" tag, but enclose the "gruu" tag and it's
CDATA on the next few lines down. I don't think it matters, but since
both was are shown, there's the possibility that one of them is wrong.
More importantly, the "allOneLine" tags are also introduced before
they're explained by the reference to [8] in section 8.

Nits:
-----
- The document was successfully run through idnits.
- SIP should likely appear somewhere in the title and I think the
convention is to include it all expanded.  Also, I think they'll want
GRUU expanded.  And, I think perhaps Reg should be expanded to
registration (but I'll leave that one up to you). So, I think you now
have a very long title: 
"Registration Event Package Extension for Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) Globablly Routeable User Agent URIs (GRUUs)"   
[I'm also hoping they're not going to want to expand URIs, but I can see
that was done for the URI services draft]. 
- Really minor nit (that you could leave for RFC editor) - you sometimes
use "GRUU" and sometimes use "gruu"

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP