Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-sip-record-route-fix-06

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:53:30 -0400

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer
for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve
these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-sip-record-route-fix-06.txt
Reviewer: Sean Turner
Review Date: 2009-07-02
IETF LC End Date: 2009-07-07
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: This draft is ready for  publication as a BCP RFC.

Nits:

Sec 3.2: r/knowledge(such/knowledge (such

Sec 3.2: r/transport"./transport."

Sec 3.2: r/not clear to decide when/not clear how to decide when (?)

Sec 5: Is something wrong with the 1st sentence?  It seems to say there 
are serious issues and that's why it is recommended as a solution:  The 
serious drawbacks of the rewriting technique probably explain why the 
double Record-Routing solution has consequently been recommended in SIP 
extensions like [RFC3486] or [RFC3608].

Sec 5: r/consists in inserting/consists of inserting

Sec 6.1: r/(biloxi.example.com)? if/(biloxi.example.com)? If

Cheers,

spt