Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-iptel-tel-np-09

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:34:36 -0400

Attached is my review of the specified document, submitted as part of
the Gen-ART process.  For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.

Document:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iptel-tel-np-09.txt

Comments:

The document is well written and generally ready for publication. I
understood it even though I am not a VOIP guy. The following are very
small comments:

- In Section 5, are you sure that you want to refer to the two database
access as "first" and "second"? Would words like "originating network"
and "serving network" be more descriptive? (This is a question, not a
comment?)

- In Section 5.1, you talk about "cic" and "rn" information that is "not
useful". A few paragraphs later, you talk about what to do if the "cic"
represents the local network or the "rn" represents the local node. I
assume that this is what you mean by "not useful". If so, would the word
 "local" be more descriptive than "not useful"? (Again, just a question).

                             Ron

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art