Brian,
On 9/25/13 11:45 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-06.txt (Informational)
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2013-09-26
IETF LC End Date: 2013-09-27
IESG Telechat date: 2013-10-10
Summary: As ready as possible
--------
Comment:
--------
The writeup says "It was difficult to get adequate reviews of this document."
I'd say that goes for this whole class of documents. Reviewing the details of
SIP
call flows is not for ordinary mortals.
Well, some would argue that participation in IETF is also not for
ordinary mortals. :-)
IMO, if you are qualified to judge the correctness of a protocol
specification, then you are qualified to verify the correctness of a
call flow that demonstrates a use case of that protocol.
Beyond finding qualified, what is required is the fortitude to do it,
and the time. When there are a lot of call flows it can take a lot of
fortitude and time.
I have not checked the call flows, and I think
we have to trust the WG on this. But our experience (those in RFC4244 being
buggy, for
example), makes me wonder about the wisdom of publishing such documents at all
under
the RFC "brand". Maybe they should just be put on a wiki somewhere, and fixed
as bugs
are found.
You aren't suggesting such a fate for *this* document are you?
I think what you suggest is worthy of discussion as a future process.
But for now this is the traditional way of handling these things.
Thanks,
Paul
The small amount of narrative text is well written.
For the record, I ballotted 'No Objection' on RFC4244 in 2005.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
