Last Call Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12
review-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12-genart-lc-halpern-2016-12-15-00

Request Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-01-18
Requested 2016-12-14
Authors Marianne Mohali, Mary Barnes
Draft last updated 2016-12-15
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Lionel Morand (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel Halpern
State Completed
Review review-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12-genart-lc-halpern-2016-12-15
Reviewed rev. 12 (document currently at 14)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2016-12-15

Review
review-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12-genart-lc-halpern-2016-12-15

Major:
    This document defines a new code for use in SIP, and specifies new behavior both for the code itself and for its use in history-info.  I am thus confused as to how this can be an informational RFC.  It looks like it either Proposed Standard or experimental.  Yes, I see that RFC 4458, which this updates is Informational.  But just because we did it wrong before does not make that behavior correct now.  In addition to my understanding of the roles of different RFCs, I note that RFC 3969 and the IANA registry both state that this assignment must be made by a standards track RFC.

Minor:
   Given our emphasis on IPv6 over IPv4, would it not make sense for the examples to use IPv6 addresses?  (Inspired by the Id-Nits alert.)