Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam-04
review-ietf-sipcore-locparam-04-genart-lc-robles-2020-01-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-01-27
Requested 2020-01-13
Authors James Winterbottom, Roland Jesske, Bruno Chatras, Andrew Hutton
Draft last updated 2020-01-26
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Ines Robles (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Rich Salz (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Tim Chown
Assignment Reviewer Ines Robles 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-sipcore-locparam-04-genart-lc-robles-2020-01-26
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/75tsi9oOK81cwBRwlIH5d7gP8cE
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2020-01-26

Review
review-ietf-sipcore-locparam-04-genart-lc-robles-2020-01-26

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-locparam-04
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 2020-01-26
IETF LC End Date: 2020-01-27
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

This document proposes for SIP protocol, a new geolocation parameter, the location-source ("loc-src"), so that an entity adding the locationValue to Geolocation header field can identify itself using its hostname.

The document does not present major issues. I have some minor questions/suggestions at the end.

Major issues: Not found

Minor issues: Not found

Nits/editorial comments:

Section 4: "A UA MUST..." it would be nice to expand UA "A User Agent (UA) MUST..."

Questions/Suggestions:

1- Section 1: I think it would be nice to add explicitly "This document updates 6442 by extending the Geolocation header field..."

2- Section 3:  where it states "There are various architectures defined f...Each has it own characteristics with corresponding pros and cons...." I think it would be nice to add a reference/s to it.

3- Which Geolocation-Error codes correspond to the situation when the "loc-scr" field presents some error, or one LocationValue presents two "loc-src" fields and the locationValue in both cases is correct?

Thank you for this document,

Ines.