Hi Elwyn, thanks for the review.
On Apr 23, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
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-saintandre-impp-call-info-02.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 23 April 2013
IETF LC End Date: 14 May 2013
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary: Ready. See the generic issue with the IANA registry
mentioned below.
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
Generic comment about SIP Header Field Parameters registry: For the
uninitiated this registry is rather opaque. Some parameters, such
as the Call-Info purpose parameter for which an extra value is
defined here, have predefined values. However the predefined values
themselves are not in the registry and just giving a whole RFC
reference for places where values are defined is not very helpful.
For example, in the case of Call-Info, the initial predefined values
of purpose are buried in the Call-Info rule in the ABNF in Section
25.1 of RFC 3261; also, Section 20.9 describes the predefined
values (such as "icon") as 'parameters' rather than values of
'purpose'. It would probably be helpful to either improve the
references in the registry table or actaully quote the possible
predefined values in the table.
I agree, but as you say that's an issue with the SIP Header Field
Parameters registry in general. I started to go down the path of
fixing the registry as a whole, but I think I'd rather leave that for
3261bis to tackle (sometime before the heat death of the universe).
Peter
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
