Hi Jari, Yes. I just replied to Dan’s comment. Will take care of all of them. Thanks for your review.
Regards, Ram -----Original Message----- From: Jari Arkko <jari.ar...@piuha.net> Date: Thursday, 1 December 2016 at 7:08 PM To: Dan Romascanu <droma...@gmail.com> Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <draft-ietf-siprec-callflows....@tools.ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-siprec-callflows-07 Resent-From: <alias-boun...@ietf.org>, <jari.ar...@piuha.net> Resent-To: <rmoh...@cisco.com>, <par...@parthasarathi.co.in>, <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu>, <andrew.hut...@unify.com>, <b...@brianrosen.net>, <b...@nostrum.com>, <ali...@cooperw.in>, <aamelni...@fastmail.fm>, Andrew Hutton <andrew.hut...@unify.com>, <draft-ietf-siprec-callflows....@ietf.org> Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 05:38:11 -0800 Thank you very much for your review, Dan. Authors, have you taken a look at Dan’s comments? Jari On 25 Nov 2016, at 14:16, Dan Romascanu <droma...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: > > draft-ietf-siprec-callflows-07 > > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review Date: 11/25/16 > IETF LC End Date: 11/27/16 > IESG Telechat date: (if known) 12/2/16 > > Summary: Ready. > > This is a very useful supporting document in the SIPREC cluster. > > Major issues: > > None > > Minor issues: > > None > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > 1. The title is slightly misleading, as the document does not have as goal to document all or the most important call flows, but rather to provide a grouping of significant examples. 'Examples of SUP Recording Call Flows' may have been a better title. > > 2. As the document uses terminology defined in [RFC7865] and [RFC6341], listing these two RFCs as Normative References seems necessary (can't understand the terms without reading the two RFCs) > > 3. typo in the Securoty Considerations section: ' > > Security considerations mentioned in [RFC7865] and [RFC7866] has to be followed ... > > s/has to/have to/ > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Genemail@example.com > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Genfirstname.lastname@example.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art