Subject: [Sipping] WGLC Review: draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-03.txt

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:47:06 -0500

Draft:  draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-03.txt
Reviewer: Mary Barnes
Review Date: 25 July 2006
Review Deadline: 20 July 2006
Status: WGLC  

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a Proposed
Standard, updating RFC 3264.  However, there is one question and some
nits that should be addressed before publication, along with the
clarifications requested by the other reviewers (although I'm okay with
keeping the textual redundancy between sections 3.1 and 3.2).   Some of
the nits are very picky, but I think it's better for the SIPPING WG to
produce a doc that minimizes the changes the RFC editor might make for
readability.  

Section 3.1:
- first paragraph: add reference to DNS (i.e. [8]) (the reference does
not appear until later in the 4th paragraph). 
- 3rd paragraph (for readability):  replace "(which...domain)."  with
", which...domain." 

Section 3.1.1: 
- second main paragraph (i.e., paragraph after the indented text
addressing 2543 issues), 2nd sentence: change "...session since without
it, the upstream..." to "...session; otherwise, the upstream ..."
- second main paragraph, last sentence:  change the use of "will contain
the proxy's" to "contains the proxy's" (2 occurences). 
- 5th paragraph: "...sports an address..." - I would think either "has"
or "support" would be a good replacement for "sports".  
- 1st pargraph after the example (Note: you might also want to add a
Figure reference for the example): I would suggest rewriting that
paragraph as present tense - it makes it less wordy and more definitive.
In addition, the second sentence reads very awkwardly, so I suggest to
change from:
"  It's route set will include, as the first destination, the proxy's
IPv6 interface."
to: 
"  Its route set includes the proxy's IPv6 interface as the first
destination.

Section 4:

- 8th paragraph (1st paragraph following the numbered list):  Dale had
suggested that the "(i.e., TURN)" be changed to an "e.g." since it is an
example. However, I have a general question as to whether the TURN
reference should be normative (it is listed as a normative reference in
the Reference section), which means the "i.e," (meaning) is more
appropriate?  I would also suggest adding an explicit reference to the
TURN document at this point.  (Note also the suggestion below to update
the TURN reference).  

- 9th paragraph, last sentence (a slightly different change than Dale
suggested): 
change "... likely deploy TURN relays as a NAT-traversal,..." 
    to "... likely to deploy TURN relays as a NAT-traversal solution,
..."

References:
- TURN reference [10] should now be to the BEHAVE WG document:
draft-ietf-behave-turn-01
- IDNITS has a minor complaint about an extra space after "Session" in
reference [13].

_______________________________________________
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

---

From: "Drage, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:09:17 +0200

Correct. 

Apologies, I was reading off the RFC index and my eyes jumped to the
wrong part of the entry.

Won't be long before I have committed this number to memory.

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 26 July 2006 17:01
> To: Drage, Keith (Keith)
> Cc: Mary Barnes; [email-masked]; Vijay K. Gurbani; Gonzalo 
> Camarillo; Karim El Malki
> Subject: Re: [Sipping] WGLC Review: 
> draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-03.txt
> 
> On 26 Jul 2006, at 16:57, Drage, Keith ((Keith)) wrote:
> > A couple more NITS while we are at it.
> ...
> > 2)	Reference [2] to RFC 2327. I could see no reason why this is not
> > to the replacing RFC 3266.
> 
> Or even RFC 4566.
> 
> Colin
>