Hi Robert, >Your changes below are fine. > >I added Paul and Richard because of their involvement in adding the 3gpp text. > >I'm not ok with the 3gpp scope as written. >It makes no sense to claim this is a proposed standard for the Internet and >say "it's not defined for any part of the Internet that's not 3gpp". >I would expect most of the IESG to have the same reaction. > >It would be different, and less objectionable, to say "it's not likely to be >particularly useful anywhere but in a 3GPP network". > >I still think you should just remove last paragraph of the introduction, and >section 2 altogether.
I assume that we then also have to remove "3rd-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)" from the title? Regards, Christer On 1/7/15 3:11 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Are you ok with the suggested changes? > > I suggest that we don't change the 3GPP scope. It would delay the draft, and > nobody has shown any interest for non-3GPP usage. > > Regards, > > Christer > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gen-art [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christer > Holmberg > Sent: 19. joulukuuta 2014 16:10 > To: Robert Sparks; General Area Review Team > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Fwd: Gen-art LC review: > draft-holmerg-dispatch-iotl-03.txt > > Hi, > >>> Nits/editorial comments: >>> >>>> Since you are providing an extension point for other values, >>>> someone will ask if you need a registry for those values. I suggest >>>> explicitly saying we are not creating a registry at this time but >>>> expect to do so if the extension point is ever used to head that >>>> conversation off. >>> I could add the following text to the Syntax/General section: >>> >>> "This specification does not create an IANA registry for 'iotl' >>> parameter values. >>> If new parameters values are defined in the future, such registry needs >>> to be >>> created." >>> >>> Or, do you think it should be somewhere else? >> It's fine there. However, I would change the last sentence to "A registry >> should be considered if new parameter values are defined in the future". > Ok. > > "This specification does not create an IANA registry for 'iotl' > parameter values. > A registry should be considered if new parameter values are defined in > the future" > > --------------- > >>>> The sentence (which occurs in the abstract and introduction) "The >>>> directionality in traffic legs relates to a SIP request creating a >>>> dialogue and stand-alone SIP request." does not parse. What is it >>>> trying to say, and why is it important? >>> The sentence is not needed (and it doesn't belong in the Abstract to begin >>> with), so I suggest to remove it. >> You'll remove it from the introduction as well? > Yes. > > Regards, > > Christer > > _______________________________________________ > 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
