Subject: [Gen-art] Gen Art LC review of: draft-ietf-sipcore-199-02

From: Avshalom Houri <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:44:33 +0200

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 wait for direction from your document shepherd 
or AD before posting a new version of the draft. 

Document: draft-ietf-sipcore-199-02
Reviewer: Avshalom Houri
Review Date: 26 Jan 2010
IESG last call date: 27 Jan 2010 

Summary: The draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC (see 
minor issues & nits/editorial).

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

11. Security section
Seems too short for this type of proposal. May need to reference security 
sections in relevant other RFCs.

Nits/editorial comments: 

Section 3: Requirements
A single requirement is listed without any wording around it. A bit of 
explanantion may help.

Section 4.1 Examples of resource types
Some benefits from resourc types are listed and then there are several 
paragraphs whose context is not very clear.

Line 380:
   the 199 response unreliable, or include an SDP offer with no m- lines
->    the 199 response unreliably, or include an SDP offer with no m- 
lines

Line 381:
   in the reliable 199 response.
->    in a reliable 199 response.

Line 384:
   is only used for information purpose, the UAS SHOULD send it
->    is only used for information purposes, the UAS SHOULD send it
(not sure if it should be fixed, current wording not fluent either)

Thanks
Avshalom