On 9/26/13 4:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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 didn't mean to imply that the Gen-ART reviewer should do so!
I was commenting on the difficulty of getting reviewers (within the WG).
IMO there are quite a number of people *capable* of doing such a review.
There just aren't enough who are willing to put in the time and sweat to
do it. (And I'm as guilty as others. I don't find it as "fun" as other
parts.)
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
