Hi, a few minor comments on the following draft:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bliss-ach-analysis-05.txt The title of the draft could already include the ACH acronym: An Analysis of Automatic Call Handling (ACH) Implementation Issues in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Section 1: add a reference the first time RFC 3261 is mentioned. Section 1: have you considered including the results of the survey in an appendix? Section 2: acronyms such as UA and AoR should be expanded on their first use. End of Section 3.4 OLD: ... with [RFC4458] NEW: ... with RFC 4458 [RFC4458] Section 5.3: To be sure, does that section say that we need new response codes and header fields are needed or that with the existing ones we have enough? Section 5.6: In the following open issue, who should adopt such a framework? OPEN ISSUE. The above reference to be replaced by whatever is adopted as work item for a framework for RESTful configuration. Section 6 uses RFC 2119 normative language but the document has no reference to RFC 2119. Sections 6.3 and 6.4: what is current the status of that work? Cheers, Gonzalo _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
