Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-10
review-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-10-genart-lc-halpern-2013-05-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-05-29
Requested 2013-05-16
Draft last updated 2013-05-19
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -10 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -14 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Scott Kelly (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -14 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel Halpern
State Completed
Review review-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-10-genart-lc-halpern-2013-05-19
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 17)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2013-05-19

Review
review-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-10-genart-lc-halpern-2013-05-19

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-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-10
    A Mechanism for Transporting User to User
        Call Control Information in SIP
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 19-May-2013
IETF LC End Date: 29-May-2013
IESG Telechat date: N/A



Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed 


Standard




Major issues:

Minor issues:


    The requirements discussions for redirection and referral (second 


paragraph of section 3, in regards REQ-3) includes what appears to be 


normative requirements on redirecting devices.



a) This would seem to belong in section 4 on Normative Definition.


b) It would seem that there ought to be some discussion of what happens 


with redirecting devices that do not understand this new UUI. (I presume 


things work, but I don't see how.)




Nits/editorial comments:


    In section 8.2, given that this is a WG document, should the "the 


authors believe" actually be "the WG believes"?  Or even, given IETF 


rough consensus on this document, "the IETF believes"?