Thank you Brian very much for your review. I have balloted No-Obj… Jari
On Oct 4, 2013, at 7:25 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a > new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-06.txt (Informational) > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review Date: 2013-10-04 > IETF LC End Date: 2013-09-27 > IESG Telechat date: 2013-10-10 > > Summary: Ready > -------- > > Comment: > -------- > > The writeup says "It was difficult to get adequate reviews of this document." > I'd say that goes for this whole class of documents. Reviewing the details of > SIP > call flows is not for ordinary mortals. I have not checked the call flows, > and I think > we have to trust the WG on this. But our experience (the flows in RFC4244 > being buggy, for > example), makes me wonder about the wisdom of publishing future documents > like this under > the RFC "brand". Maybe they should just be put on a wiki somewhere, and fixed > as bugs > are found. > > The small amount of narrative text is well written. > > For the record, I ballotted 'No Objection' on RFC4244 in 2005. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
