Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani Review result: Almost 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-sipcore-originating-cdiv-parameter-?? Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani Review Date: 2018-10-29 IETF LC End Date: 2018-10-26 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. Major issues: 0 Minor issues: 1 Nits/editorial comments: 1 Minor: - S1.3: I am not sure I follow the logic in the problem statement. Who is the "diverting" user? The user to who the call was destined? If so, best to say that explicitly. (To be sure, I looked into rfc5502 as well, and it does not define "diverting" user either.) A bit below (in S4), you use the term "served" user to refer to the diverting user. All in all, the terminology here could be refined. I suspect that the "originating" user is the callee. Concretely, I think that the first paragraph of S1.3 should be re-written, perhaps with a figure (?) to explain the call flow, or at least some context using Alice, Bob and Carol as the example in S7.1 does (I suspect that Carol is the "diverting" user here). Nits, typos: - S4, step 3: s/user an INVITE that/user as an INVITE that/ Also, the "secase" and "regstate" parameters are what you are standardizing this I-D, as such you mention this before S4 so the reader knows that these are the new parameters. Same for "orig-cdiv" parameter.
