Registration Event Package Extension for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Globally Routable User Agent URIs (GRUUs)
RFC 5628

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Jon Peterson) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2006-09-11 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Section 1 paragraph 3 refers to RFC 3860. Is this a misprint for 3680?

The Gen-ART reviewer (Eric Gray) found this sentence in the Abstract quite confusing:

   The Globally Routable User Agent URI (GRUU)
   has been defined for SIP as a URI that is capable of reaching a
   particular contact, however this URI is not present in the format
   defined in RFC 3680.

Perhaps it means:

   According to RFC 3680, a SIP URI known as the Globally Routable User                 
   Agent URI (GRUU), capable of reaching a particular contact, is needed.
   
Other review comments:

Security Example? - 

	In your security section, you make the following statement - 

   "The proxy may control access as desired, just as it may for 
    the AOR."

In my opinion, it would be good if you could provide either an
explicit example (one or more) of what you mean by "control access
as desired", or provide a more explicit reference to where this is
already described for AOR.

Minor wording issue (NITs) -

	Also in the security section, there are a few wording, or 
grammar glitches:

   "Security considerations for the registration event package is"

SHOULD BE

   "Security considerations for the registration event package are"

AND

   "its disclosure may arguably be considered of minimal security risk"

is a bit awkward, and I would suggest 

   "its disclosure may arguably be considered a minimal security risk"

(When you use "of", you imply that "minimal security risk" is a group
 or class that "its disclosure" may belong to, and that is a somewhat
 more formal association than I believe exists in this case)

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2006-09-12 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Section 13.2., paragraph 1:
>    [5]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
>         Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
>         Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.

  Nit: Unused Reference: '5' is defined on line 458, but not referenced


Section 13.2., paragraph 3:
>    [7]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat, "Indicating User
>         Agent Capabilities in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
>         RFC 3840, August 2004.

  Nit: Unused Reference: '7' is defined on line 467, but not referenced

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

Comment (2006-09-12 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
While I'm sympathetic to Cullen's discuss, I think the normative dependency on the GRUU spec is enough here.  If the GRUU spec does something that would cause this to change, it can be brought back to the IESG or the WG without having published the spec.  In the mean time,
the IANA actions (registering the namespace and schema) will be done and available for our
risk-taking early implementation folk.  I don't think anything in the GRUU spec could change those.

In the mean time, there is a lot of real world stuff waiting on GRUU.  If the folks involved are 
time constrained, can they be assisted?  If there are other impediments, can they be removed
in an unmarked van to out-of-the-way locations?

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2006-09-12)
No email
send info
The <allOneLine> notation is *really* confusing when used inside an XML document.

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection