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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy-01.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2013-12-14 IETF LC End Date: 2013-12-09 IESG Telechat date: 2013-12-19 Summary: Ready with issues -------- Comment: -------- I have seen no response to my Last Call comments so this review has not changed. This is a sipcore WG draft despite its file name. Major Issue: ------------ "Experience has suggested that a document that only defines a new namespace with its priorities, and does not create new protocol semantics, should not be a standards-track document." I have a couple of problems with this sentence. 1. It reads like a broad statement of IETF policy. Given that we have a normative document in this area (RFC 5226) and an IAB advisory document about extensions in general (RFC 6709), I don't think the statement is true in general, regardless of whether it's true in this particular case. 2. "Experience has suggested..." is a weak justification for a change in policy, even for these two specific registries. Actually, I can't possibly judge from the draft whether the change is safe (the considerations for why it might be safe or dangerous are in RFC 6709). I would be reassured by an evidence-based justification, along the lines of "Experience with the N namespaces and M resource-priorities defined since the publication of RFC 4412, without creating new protocol semantics, has shown that such definitions do not cause interoperability issues. Therefore documents that only define such namespaces and priorities do not need to be on the standards track." If that isn't true (i.e. there can be interoperability issues) we have a bigger problem. Minor issue: ------------ I believe the title, Abstract and Introduction should mention SIP for clarity. Nit: ---- In the Abstract, s/ ti / to / _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
