Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-02

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:16:53 -0400

The nits in the Gen-ART review of the -01 version of this draft
have not been addressed in the -02 version.

idnits found one existing nit and one new one:

  == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form
     feeds but 8 pages

  == Line 156 has weird spacing: '...n, this  is a ...'

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:45 PM
> To: James M. Polk; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: Black, David; Robert Sparks
> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-01
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
> please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
> receive.
> 
> Document: draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-01
> Reviewer: David L. Black
> Review Date: July 12, 2011
> IETF LC End Date: July 13, 2011
> 
> Summary:
> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be
> fixed before publication.
> 
> This draft defines a SIP Resource Priority header namespace, "esnet", for use
> in
> providing preferential treatment to emergency calls (e.g., from on-scene
> responders).
> 
> This field is an addition to rather than a replacement for existing notions of
> priority in the SIP Resource Priority header.  Section 2 explains why this was
> done, but section 2 is a bit sloppy and imprecise.  Some level of imprecision
> is
> necessary as this draft deliberately does not specify how this header
> namespace
> is used to provide preferential treatment.  Nonetheless, the following two
> items
> could be improved in Section 2's discussion:
> 
> 1) Explain the reason for including the second paragraph, the paragraph
> 	that references RFC 4412's discouragement of modification of priorities
> 	within an administrative domain.  That paragraph's not connected to the
> 	rest of section 2.
> 2) Explicitly state that one of the anticipated uses of the priorities in the
> 	esnet namespace is to override the ordinary priorities found elsewhere
> in
> 	the Resource Priority header.
> 
> Small nit: There's an extraneous "to" in the first line of section 3:
> 
>    The "esnet" namespace should not to be considered generic for all
>                                     ^^
> 
> idnits 2.12.12 found a few formatting problems:
> 
>   == You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from
>      12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009.  (See
>      http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/)
> 
>   == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form
>      feeds but 7 pages
> 
>   == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
>      match the current year
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> [email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------