Paul, On 27/09/2013 02:21, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > 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.
And a good understanding of SIP, so it really is for specialists. Gen-ART reviews are performed by generalists, so reviewing for correctness of details is generally not what we can do. >> 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? That would be above my pay grade. Brian > 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
