The nits in the Gen-ART review of the -01 version of this draft
have not been addressed in the -02 version.
idnits found one existing nit and one new one:
== It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form
feeds but 8 pages
== Line 156 has weird spacing: '...n, this is a ...'
Thanks,
--David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:45 PM
> To: James M. Polk; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: Black, David; Robert Sparks
> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-01
>
> 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-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-01
> Reviewer: David L. Black
> Review Date: July 12, 2011
> IETF LC End Date: July 13, 2011
>
> Summary:
> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be
> fixed before publication.
>
> This draft defines a SIP Resource Priority header namespace, "esnet", for use
> in
> providing preferential treatment to emergency calls (e.g., from on-scene
> responders).
>
> This field is an addition to rather than a replacement for existing notions of
> priority in the SIP Resource Priority header. Section 2 explains why this was
> done, but section 2 is a bit sloppy and imprecise. Some level of imprecision
> is
> necessary as this draft deliberately does not specify how this header
> namespace
> is used to provide preferential treatment. Nonetheless, the following two
> items
> could be improved in Section 2's discussion:
>
> 1) Explain the reason for including the second paragraph, the paragraph
> that references RFC 4412's discouragement of modification of priorities
> within an administrative domain. That paragraph's not connected to the
> rest of section 2.
> 2) Explicitly state that one of the anticipated uses of the priorities in the
> esnet namespace is to override the ordinary priorities found elsewhere
> in
> the Resource Priority header.
>
> Small nit: There's an extraneous "to" in the first line of section 3:
>
> The "esnet" namespace should not to be considered generic for all
> ^^
>
> idnits 2.12.12 found a few formatting problems:
>
> == You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from
> 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See
> http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/)
>
> == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form
> feeds but 7 pages
>
> == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
> match the current year
>
>
> Thanks,
> --David
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> [email protected] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
