Caller Preferences for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
(Ned Freed) Yes
I'm delighted to see the media features framework being reused here rather than invent yet another mechanism and registry. Some nits: RFC 2506 is referenced but does not appear in the bibliography. IMO it's an informative reference. The document probably should state that the feature tags it uses as examples are drawn from draft-ietf-sip-callee-caps-00 . (If it says this somewhere I couldn't find it.) The author names given in reference  are email addresses. Some sort of xml2rfc botch?
(Ted Hardie) Yes
(Allison Mankin) Yes
(Jon Peterson) Yes
(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection
(Steven Bellovin) No Objection
I'll let Russ hold the DISCUSS token, but my objection is the same as his: there's no reference for the mandatory-to-implement security mechanism. A simple pointer to Section 23 of 3261 would suffice, with a note saying that the integrity mechanisms MUST be used. (From a quick glance, I don't *think* that anything here requires confidentiality; it wouldn't hurt to say that.)
(Margaret Cullen) No Objection
(Bill Fenner) No Objection
Two minor ABNF issues: "directive" ends with an extraneous close-paren, which should be removed. What's XXXX supposed to be in ;;feature param from RFC XXXX ? There are no nearby directions to the RFC editor.