Hi Jari,

Yes. I just replied to Dan’s comment. Will take care of all of them. Thanks for 
your review.


-----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: <gen-art@ietf.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?
    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
    > Gen-art@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Gen-art mailing list

Reply via email to