I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03.txt

For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<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.

Summary: Almost ready for publication but I have a few comments.

Major
=====

* The draft assumes some kind of ordering requirement between namespaces. From my reading of RFC4412, this is not the case.

"Thus, a message (or a call) with the following Resource-Priority
 header value:

 dsn-000001.8

 for example, MUST NOT ever receive preferential treatment over a
 message, for example, with this Resource-Priority header value:

 dsn-000010.0

 because they are two difference namespaces"

e.g.

Consider an RP actor that supports both the namespaces, dsn-000001 and dsn-000010. It could maintain an ordered list which contains

dsn-000001.9
dsn-000001.8
dsn-000010.9
...
dsn-000010.0

and this is a valid priority order according to section 8.2 of RFC4412. Given this, why would this be considered invalid behavior if dsn-000001.8 DID receive preferential treatment over dsn-000010.0? This might be a major misunderstanding on my part. If so please correct me.

Editorial
=========

* Introduction

Replace
"Each will be preemption in nature"
with
"Each will be preemptive in nature"

Nits
====

* Form feed characters missing between Pages

Opinion(feel free to ignore)
============================

* Why so many 0's in the name of the namespace? It is really easy for someone to miss a 0 or two.

* Maybe you have been asked this question million times before, but are these many namespaces really necessary?

From RFC4412

"Jurisdictions SHOULD
 attempt to reuse existing IANA registered namespaces where possible,
 as a goal of this document is not to have unique namespaces per
 jurisdiction serving the same purpose, with the same usage of
 priority levels."


Cheers
Suresh







_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to