Thanks for your review. Comments inline. --Avshalom
[email protected] wrote on 23/09/2009 12:01:32 AM: > From: > > Christian Vogt <[email protected]> > > To: > > Gen-ART Mailing List <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Cc: > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, Avshalom Houri/Haifa/i...@ibmil, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <hgs > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > > Date: > > 23/09/2009 12:02 AM > > Subject: > > [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-sipcore-presence-scaling- > requirements-02 > > Sent by: > > [email protected] > > 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-presence-scaling-requirements-02 > Reviewer..........: Christian Vogt > Review date.......: September 22, 2009 > IESG Telechat date: September 24, 2009 > > > Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits > that should be fixed before publication. > > > This document describes requirements for SIP/SIMPLE optimizations, > primarily to address scalability issues that have been observed for > SIP/SIMPLE deployments. > > The document is well-written and concise, and it is basically ready for > publication. Two comments, though, which the authors may want to > consider: > > - It would be worth mentioning in the introduction of the document what > the expected result of this document should be. Obviously, we are > expecting (or hoping for) an improvement in the scalability of > SIP/SIMPLE, but this should be made explicit. Also, do we have > estimates of how much SIP/SIMPLE will improve? These are defined by the requirements themselves specifically in 3.3. It is not possible to know how much the protocol will improve until we will have actual requirements that we will be able to analyze. > > - The document only talks about "optimizations" to which the defined > requirement should apply. How about other types of protocol > enhancements, such as functional extensions? Wouldn't the defined > requirements apply to those just as well? No. Functional requirements are not in the scope of this document. > > Good luck with the publication! > > - Christian > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
