|
Roni Thank you for the review My responses below prepended with [AA] Andrew
From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx]
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-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid-10 Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date:2013–8–5 IETF LC End Date: 2013-8–16 IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC. Major issues: Minor issues: Why is it going to be an Informational RFC, considering that there is a lot of normative language in the document. [AA] I think there are many other informational RFCs that contain normative language (e.g. RFC 3325 is informative and full of MUST statements). There is
no intention to make this an IETF standard so therefore it cannot be standards track. This is being specified for 3GPP usage to meet the requirements of RFC 5626 that require publication of an RFC for specifying URNs that are used as instance-IDs. Nits/editorial comments: According to RFC editor guidelines (http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.abstract)
the abstract section should not contain citations unless they are completely defined within the Abstract.
[AA] This specification defines how the Uniform Resource Name namespace
reserved for the GSMA (GSM Association) identities and its sub-
namespace for the IMEI (International Mobile station Equipment
Identity) can be used as an instance-id as specified in RFC 5626 [1]
and also as used by RFC 5627 [2]. Its purpose is to fulfil the
requirements in RFC 5626 [1] that state "If a URN scheme other than
UUID is used, the UA MUST only use URNs for which an RFC (from the
IETF stream) defines how the specific URN needs to be constructed and
used in the "+sip.instance" Contact header field parameter for
outbound behavior."
[AA] I think I can remove the as specified in RFC 5626 [1] and also as used by RFC 5627 [2] from the first sentence however I think the second sentence
contains the relevant statement from the RFC so this is OK.
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. |