Subject: [Sipping] WGLC: draft-ietf-sipping-overload-reqs-00.txt

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 16:11:56 -0500

Draft: draft-ietf-sipping-overload-reqs-00
Reviewer: Mary Barnes
Review Date: May 21, 2007
Review Deadline: May 21, 2007
Status: WGLC

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits 
that should be fixed before publication.

Nits:
- Need to add the Intended Status to the header: category="info" 
- Section 6 (General):  I agree with Volker's suggestion that this
section should match the agreed modeling approach from the design team 
- Section 6.1: qualifying the parameters in section 6 with the units
would make it more readable (e.g., "Saccess" -> "Saccess bits" and
"Score" -> "Score bits") 
- Section 6.3: per comment above on 6.1, "Srin" -> "Srin bits"
- Figure 6: "Spkit" -> "Spkt"  (or change the reference in 6.2 to
"Spkit")

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 20:32:10 -0500

Draft: draft-ietf-sipping-overload-reqs-00
Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins
Review Date: May 27, 2007
Review Deadline: May 21, 2007 (whoops!)
Status: WGLC

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but I do have a 
couple of comments.

Comments:

This draft is very well-written and very readable.

This draft seems to sidestep interaction with TCP (and SCTP) retransmission 
behavior. The current focus on UDP is the right place to start, but perhaps 
it's worth looking at non-datagram transports in a separate draft, and/or at 
some point in the future.

Is there any reason to mention interaction with secure transports?

Nits:

There are a bunch of nits identified (mostly related to the age of the 
current version of the draft, etc). Here's what got flagged, though.

idnits 2.04.07

tmp/draft-ietf-sipping-overload-reqs-00.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC 4748:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line,
     instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748.

  ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead
     of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC
     4748.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed
     Standard

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** There are 5 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest 
one
     being 3 characters in excess of 72.

  ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the
     recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119
     keywords.

     RFC 2119 keyword, line 176: '...er is given, the client MUST act as 
if...'
     RFC 2119 keyword, line 180: '...to an alternate server.  It SHOULD 
NOT...'
     RFC 2119 keyword, line 184: '...      Servers MAY refuse the 
connectio...'
     RFC 2119 keyword, line 195: '...   at SHOULD NOT strength.  This is 
to...'

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not
     match the current year

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
     draft-ietf-sip-outbound-04

     Summary: 4 errors (**), 3 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).

     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information 
about
     the items above.