Thanks Roni for the review. Note, we did consider “subject” but decided that the context of “subject” is different enough and generally a broader scope from the context of specific usage and rules around “call reason” as defined in RCD that it was more appropriate to define the new parameter to avoid confusion/overlapping with potential existing usage. -Chris > On Feb 9, 2025, at 2:00 PM, Roni Even via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review result: Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. > > Document: draft-ietf-sipcore-callinfo-rcd-?? > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review Date: 2025-02-09 > IETF LC End Date: 2025-02-17 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > The document is ready for publication as a standard track RFC. > I am wondering why do you think that call-reason will be used if “subject” had > low usage. I have no objection to the new parameter just wondering. > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > Nits/editorial comments: > > -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
