Subject: [sipcore] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-clarifications-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 19:10:07 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-clarifications-04: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-clarifications/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of nits, but I'm a Yes.

3GPP capitalizes "3GPP", don't they? It would be nice to match their
usage. 

It might be nice to provide a pointer of some sort, so that people who
work on the periphery of 3GPP can figure out if they are involved enough
to care about "the 3GPP environment".

In this text:

4.  Dialog reuse is prohibited

   If a peer in an existing dialog has provided a GRUU as its Contact,
   sending a REFER that might result in an additional dialog usage
   within that dialog is prohibited.  This is a direct consequence of
   [RFC6665] requiring the use of GRUU, and the requirements in section
   4.5.2 of that document.
   
I found the use of "is prohibited" somewhat strange, because this section
contains plenty of RFC 2119 language in close proximity. Am I reading
this as saying "the 2119 language is over there"? 

If so, section 4.5.2 is nearly two pages long. Is this text just pointing
to 

   Subscribers MUST NOT attempt to reuse dialogs whose remote target is
   a GRUU.
   
or to something else?