Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-06.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:45:45 +1200

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-06.txt (Informational)
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2013-09-26
IETF LC End Date: 2013-09-27
IESG Telechat date: 2013-10-10

Summary:  As ready as possible
--------

Comment:
--------

The writeup says "It was difficult to get adequate reviews of this document."
I'd say that goes for this whole class of documents. Reviewing the details of SIP
call flows is not for ordinary mortals. I have not checked the call flows, and I think
we have to trust the WG on this. But our experience (those in RFC4244 being buggy, for
example), makes me wonder about the wisdom of publishing such documents at all under
the RFC "brand". Maybe they should just be put on a wiki somewhere, and fixed as bugs
are found.

The small amount of narrative text is well written.

For the record, I ballotted 'No Objection' on RFC4244 in 2005.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:21:00 -0400

Brian,

On 9/25/13 11:45 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> call flows is not for ordinary mortals.

Well, some would argue that participation in IETF is also not for 
ordinary mortals. :-)

IMO, if you are qualified to judge the correctness of a protocol 
specification, then you are qualified to verify the correctness of a 
call flow that demonstrates a use case of that protocol.

Beyond finding qualified, what is required is the fortitude to do it, 
and the time. When there are a lot of call flows it can take a lot of 
fortitude and time.

> I have not checked the call flows, and I think

You aren't suggesting such a fate for *this* document are you?

I think what you suggest is worthy of discussion as a future process. 
But for now this is the traditional way of handling these things.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:01:33 +1200

Paul,

> and the time. When there are a lot of call flows it can take a lot of

And a good understanding of SIP, so it really is for specialists.
Gen-ART reviews are performed by generalists, so reviewing for
correctness of details is generally not what we can do.

> You aren't suggesting such a fate for *this* document are you?

That would be above my pay grade.

   Brian

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:11:18 -0400

> correctness of details is generally not what we can do.

I didn't mean to imply that the Gen-ART reviewer should do so!

I was commenting on the difficulty of getting reviewers (within the WG). 
IMO there are quite a number of people *capable* of doing such a review. 
There just aren't enough who are willing to put in the time and sweat to 
do it. (And I'm as guilty as others. I don't find it as "fun" as other 
parts.)

	Thanks,
	Paul