On 1/7/15 8:58 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi Robert,
Your changes below are fine.
I added Paul and Richard because of their involvement in adding the 3gpp text.
I'm not ok with the 3gpp scope as written.
It makes no sense to claim this is a proposed standard for the Internet and say
"it's not defined for any part of the Internet that's not 3gpp".
I would expect most of the IESG to have the same reaction.
It would be different, and less objectionable, to say "it's not likely to be
particularly useful anywhere but in a 3GPP network".
I still think you should just remove last paragraph of the introduction, and
section 2 altogether.
I assume that we then also have to remove "3rd-Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP)" from the title?
I'm less uptight about that. That helps say "it's not likely to be
particularly useful anywhere but in a 3GPP network".
Even P-headers, back in the day, were not "undefined outside the private
network".
Regards,
Christer
On 1/7/15 3:11 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi Robert,
Are you ok with the suggested changes?
I suggest that we don't change the 3GPP scope. It would delay the draft, and
nobody has shown any interest for non-3GPP usage.
Regards,
Christer
-----Original Message-----
From: Gen-art [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christer
Holmberg
Sent: 19. joulukuuta 2014 16:10
To: Robert Sparks; General Area Review Team
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Fwd: Gen-art LC review:
draft-holmerg-dispatch-iotl-03.txt
Hi,
Nits/editorial comments:
Since you are providing an extension point for other values,
someone will ask if you need a registry for those values. I suggest
explicitly saying we are not creating a registry at this time but
expect to do so if the extension point is ever used to head that conversation
off.
I could add the following text to the Syntax/General section:
"This specification does not create an IANA registry for 'iotl'
parameter values.
If new parameters values are defined in the future, such registry needs
to be
created."
Or, do you think it should be somewhere else?
It's fine there. However, I would change the last sentence to "A registry should be
considered if new parameter values are defined in the future".
Ok.
"This specification does not create an IANA registry for 'iotl'
parameter values.
A registry should be considered if new parameter values are defined in the
future"
---------------
The sentence (which occurs in the abstract and introduction) "The
directionality in traffic legs relates to a SIP request creating a
dialogue and stand-alone SIP request." does not parse. What is it
trying to say, and why is it important?
The sentence is not needed (and it doesn't belong in the Abstract to begin
with), so I suggest to remove it.
You'll remove it from the introduction as well?
Yes.
Regards,
Christer
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
