Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push-21

Request Review of draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 29)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-12-21
Requested 2018-12-07
Draft last updated 2018-12-19
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -21 by Scott Kelly (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -21 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Stewart Bryant
State Completed
Review review-ietf-sipcore-sip-push-21-genart-lc-bryant-2018-12-19
Reviewed rev. 21 (document currently at 29)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2018-12-19


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


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:

     Via: SIP/2.0/TCP;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7
     Max-Forwards: 70
     To: Alice <>
     From: Alice <>;tag=456248
     Call-ID: 843817637684230@998sdasdh09
     CSeq: 1826 REGISTER
     Contact: <;
     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 (

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.

SB> Similarly in the following section