Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-06
review-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-06-genart-lc-carpenter-2013-09-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-09-27
Requested 2013-09-19
Draft last updated 2013-09-26
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -06 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Carpenter
State Completed
Review review-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-06-genart-lc-carpenter-2013-09-26
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 08)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2013-09-26

Review
review-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-06-genart-lc-carpenter-2013-09-26

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-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-06.txt (Informational)
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2013-09-26
IETF LC End Date: 2013-09-27
IESG Telechat date: 2013-10-10

Summary:  As ready as possible
--------

Comment:
--------

The writeup says "It was difficult to get adequate reviews of this document."
I'd say that goes for this whole class of documents. Reviewing the details of SIP
call flows is not for ordinary mortals. I have not checked the call flows, and I think
we have to trust the WG on this. But our experience (those in RFC4244 being buggy, for
example), makes me wonder about the wisdom of publishing such documents at all under
the RFC "brand". Maybe they should just be put on a wiki somewhere, and fixed as bugs
are found.

The small amount of narrative text is well written.

For the record, I ballotted 'No Objection' on RFC4244 in 2005.