Subject: Re: [sipcore] WGLC of draft-ietf-sipcore-invfix-00.txt

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:45:27 +0200

Hi,

the WGLC has ended and we did not receive any additional comments. We
would like to ask the authors to perform a few minor changes to the
draft and resubmit it so that we can request its publication. All the
requested changes below are minor but we prefer them to be fixed before
the draft's IETF LC.

The draft needs to be consistent in how it refers to 2xx responses. The
draft sometimes uses 200-class responses, sometimes simply 200
responses, and sometimes 2xx responses. Choose one option and use it
throughout the draft. I personally like 2xx responses, but you may
prefer a different one.

Note that the change above may affect the title of the draft as well.
Also, make sure you introduce the acronym SIP in the title:

OLD:
... Session Initiation Protocol INVITE...

NEW:
... Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) INVITE...

We are not using the essential corrections process any longer.
Therefore, please remove the following from Section 2:

", using the process
   defined in [I-D.drage-sip-essential-correction]"

When following the essential corrections process, Section 5 was intended
for the WG to make a decision about whether or not a particular
correction was essential. Since this is going to be published as a
stand-along RFC, its intended audience is implementors, not the WG.
Therefore, I would change the heading of Section 5:

OLD:
Consequences if Not Approved

NEW:
Consequences if Not Implemented

Throughout the text, reason phrases are usually written in  brackets.
For example, 200 (OK) or 486 (Busy Here).

Acronyms (e.g., UA and TU) should be expanded on their first use.
Alternatively, you may want to add them to the Terminology Section.

The draft sometimes talks about RFCs by simply providing their number,
such as in RFC 3261, and sometimes by using a reference, such as in
[RFC3261]. It would be nice if the draft could be consistent.

References:

Remove the reference to the essential corrections process and add a
reference to RFC 2543, which, at present, is referred to in the text
without using a reference.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> we would like to WGLC the following draft:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sipcore-invfix-00.txt
> 
> This WGLC will end on January 31st. Please, send your comments to this list.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gonzalo
> SIPCORE co-chair
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>