Subject: Re: [sipcore] WGLC: draft-ietf-sip-dual-stack

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:52:39 -0300

[as individual]

As pointed out by others, section 5 needs to be clarified, and an 
example would be helpful.

Feedback from ID Nits:
- Since this draft directly quotes 3263, the authors of 3263 should
   be contacted about granting BCP78 rights, if you have not already
   done so.
- Remove the 'RFC' label in the 'Updates: ' line.
- Remove the mention of RFC 3484, which is is obsolete. Just point
   to 6724.

Other nits:
- Section 1 and 4.1 Add a space between "RFC 3263[RFC3263]"
- Since there's only a few uses of "RR", just use "record" instead.

Thanks!

Jean

On 3/21/16 1:08 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> [as chair]
>
> Today marks the start of a three-week Working Group Last Call for the
> following document:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack/
>
> The end of this last call is specifically intended to end on the Friday
> of the upcoming face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires. Our plan is to ask
> the authors to incorporate any feedback received during these final
> weeks as well as comments from the face-to-face meeting into a version
> of the document that will be ready to send to the IESG.
>
> All Working Group participants are requested to review the document and
> send comments to the SIPCORE mailing list.
>
> /a
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 21:58:38 -0400

> example would be helpful.

See my message of 6 Apr for a proposed update of section 5.

>    be contacted about granting BCP78 rights, if you have not already

Ugh, I'll look into that.

> - Remove the 'RFC' label in the 'Updates: ' line.

Will appear in -05.

> - Remove the mention of RFC 3484, which is is obsolete. Just point

The only reference to 3484 is in the passage "... contacted in the
order specified by the Source and Destination Address Selection
algorithms defined in [RFC6724] (the successor of [RFC3484])."  I want
to state in this draft that 6724 is the successor of 3484, because 6157
mentions 3484 repeatedly.

> - Section 1 and 4.1 Add a space between "RFC 3263[RFC3263]"

Will appear in -05.

> - Since there's only a few uses of "RR", just use "record" instead.

The only use of "RR" that I can find is in the title of RFC 2782 in the
references.  I suspect "RR" is a typo here.

Thanks!

Dale

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 07:08:16 -0400

> references.  I suspect "RR" is a typo here.

Oops, my mistake there.  My clever regexp search for "RR" overlooked
both "RR's" and "RRs".  I'll fix the wording in the -05.

Dale