Folks, I was asked by IESG to review the SIP Hitchhikers Guide draft. And even though last call is over for this document, I think it makes sense to share my review on this list. The Hitchhikers Guide is a very useful synopsis of important SIP-related specifications. The RFC numbering scheme makes it difficult to identify specifications of a common subject, so documents such as this are of great help for navigating through large protocol suits such as that of SIP. This Hitchhiker's Guide certainly has publication quality, and it should be published as soon as possible. I do, however, have three suggestions for increasing the usefulness of this document even further. Perhaps these could be taken into account before publication: - The scoping of the Hitchhiker's Guide in section 2, which identifies the types of documents that are considered by the guide, is a bit complex because it consists of several rules and several exceptions. I would assume that the average reader couldn't tell, after all, whether documents for a particular purpose are in-scope or not. Of course, I do acknowledge that, with the large set of SIP-related documents, it is not easy to come up with a crisp definition of which documents are "relevant" and which are not. But perhaps a very simple approach would do the job: I would suggest to simply state that those documents are included that are relevant to SIP or SDP in general, or to a large class of applications, and documents for a specific application are not. - Why are neither requirements nor architecture documents in-scope of the Hitchhiker's Guide? Requirements can be essential for defining the applicability of a method. Architectures are important to understand how multiple methods fit together. Shouldn't requirements and architecture documents therefore be in-scope of the Hitchhiker's Guide? Of course, not all such documents can be listed due to their large number. But perhaps the most relevant can. - The first bullet in section 2 defines a SIP "extension" as a mechnanism that "changes or updates" SIP. Since this definition differs from the common meaning of the word "extension", I suggest using the term "modification" instead. This would also avoid confusion with later parts of the Hitchhiker's Guide, where the term "extension" is used in its common meaning. Best regards, - Christian _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf