Stewart, thanks for your review. Christer, thanks for addressing Stewart’s comments. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa > On Dec 19, 2018, at 10:49 AM, Stewart Bryant <[email protected]> wrote: > > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review result: Ready with Nits > > 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 treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push-21 > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review Date: 2018-12-19 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-21 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: A well written document with some minor points that could use a > little > attention. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: > > In Figure 1 the following is included: > > REGISTER sip:[email protected] SIP/2.0 > Via: SIP/2.0/TCP alicemobile.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7 > Max-Forwards: 70 > To: Alice <sip:[email protected]> > From: Alice <sip:[email protected]>;tag=456248 > Call-ID: 843817637684230@998sdasdh09 > CSeq: 1826 REGISTER > Contact: <sip:[email protected]; > pn-provider=acme; > pn-param=acme-param; > pn-prid=ZTY4ZDJlMzODE1NmUgKi0K> > Expires: 7200 > Content-Length: 0 > > SB> However I don't at this stage of the text see the relationship between the > packet flow digram and the text that follows. > > ========= > Contact: IESG ([email protected]) > > SB> Is the whole IESG the most appropriate first point of contact? > > ========= > > Nits/editorial comments: > Presumably the references to RFC XXXX will be replaced by RFC <this RFC> but > that does not seem to be noted in the text > > ======== > > As dicussed in [RFC4320] and [RFC4321], non-INVITE transactions must > SB> Typo s/dicussed/discussed/ > > ======== > > Example: pn-prid = 00fc13adff78512 > > For more information about the APNs Topic and device token: > > SB> Is the following part of the example? If so it could usefully be delimited > as SB> such, otherwise, I don't understand why it is not a normal document > SB> reference. > > https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/NetworkingI > nternet/Conceptual/RemoteNotificationsPG/CommunicatingwithAPNs.html > > SB> Similarly in the following section > ========= > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
