The nits in the Gen-ART review of the -01 version of this draft
have not been addressed in the -02 version.
idnits found one existing nit and one new one:
== It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form
feeds but 8 pages
== Line 156 has weird spacing: '...n, this is a ...'
Thanks,
--David
-----Original Message-----
From: Black, David
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:45 PM
To: James M. Polk; gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: Black, David; Robert Sparks
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-01
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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.
Document: draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-01
Reviewer: David L. Black
Review Date: July 12, 2011
IETF LC End Date: July 13, 2011
Summary:
This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be
fixed before publication.
This draft defines a SIP Resource Priority header namespace, "esnet", for use
in
providing preferential treatment to emergency calls (e.g., from on-scene
responders).
This field is an addition to rather than a replacement for existing notions of
priority in the SIP Resource Priority header. Section 2 explains why this was
done, but section 2 is a bit sloppy and imprecise. Some level of imprecision
is
necessary as this draft deliberately does not specify how this header
namespace
is used to provide preferential treatment. Nonetheless, the following two
items
could be improved in Section 2's discussion:
1) Explain the reason for including the second paragraph, the paragraph
that references RFC 4412's discouragement of modification of priorities
within an administrative domain. That paragraph's not connected to the
rest of section 2.
2) Explicitly state that one of the anticipated uses of the priorities in the
esnet namespace is to override the ordinary priorities found elsewhere
in
the Resource Priority header.
Small nit: There's an extraneous "to" in the first line of section 3:
The "esnet" namespace should not to be considered generic for all
^^
idnits 2.12.12 found a few formatting problems:
== You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from
12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/)
== It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form
feeds but 7 pages
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year
Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748
+1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
david(_dot_)black(_at_)emc(_dot_)com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------