[Iptel] Comments on draft-ietf-iptel-tgrep-01.txt

["Mary Barnes" <mbarnes@nortelnetworks.com>]

Hi all,

I took an action to provide detailed feedback on this draft at the San
Francisco meeting.  The following summarizes my comments which are primarily
for editorial clarification and nits:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Heading: 
- Front Page: wrong date: October 2002 -> February 2002
- wrong version number of the draft on the non-title page headers
- wrong date on the non-title page headers

Abstract:  
- Propose to change the 3rd sentence from:
"The prefix and resource information can then be passed on to a TRIP
Location Server, which in turn can propogate that routing information within
the same, and other internet telephony administrative domains (ITAD)." 

to something like:

"The prefix and resource information can then be passed on to a TRIP
Location Server, which in turn can propogate that routing information within
and between internet telephony administrative domains (ITAD)." 

- Last sentence: "messaages" -> "messages"

Section 1:
- Add a definition for Circuits which is used later in the document, propose
something like:
" A circuit is a discrete (specific) path between two or more points along
which signals can be carried. In this context, a circuit is a physical path,
consisting of one or more wires and possibly intermediate switching points."

- Propose to clarify the definition for Carrier by having 2 terms: Carrier
System and Carrier Service Provider. I think the current definition refers
to the latter, but It's not clear. 

"Carrier system: A communications system providing a number of
point-to-point channels (connections) through some type of multiplexing."

"Carrier Service Provider: A company offering telephone and data
communications between points (end-users and or exchanges). "

Section 2: 
- Paragraph 3 (just below figure 1): I would propose deleting the last part
of that 1st sentence: "particular POTS destination" or change it to "a
particular PSTN destination" since PSTN is a much broader term. 

- Paragraph 5 (bottom of page 3): either delete "the" from the phase "the
TRIP" or change it to "the TRIP protocol"

- Paragraph 5 (3rd sentence): "characterstics" -> "characteristics"

- Paragraph 5 (4th sentence): reword from:
"The document aims at specifying all the attributes that can go in on the
TGREP session. "
to:
"This document aims at specifying all the attributes related to the TGREP
session."

-Paragraph 5 (5th sentence): reword from:
"The document also specified some new address families which can be useful
in advertising the information on the GWs."
to:
"This document also specifies some new address families which can be useful
in advertising the information on the GWs."

Section 3.1:
-Last Paragraph: What is meant by "measured in integral number of calls"?
Is this the total number of active calls at any one instance or something
else?  If so, would "the maximum number of active calls" be a better term?
Although, I think that's effectively what is in the previous paragraph, so
is this statement useful or are you using it to describe the units of
measurement of this attribute?

Section 3.2:
- First Paragraph, last sentence; based on the context I think this should
be a SHOULD rather than a MUST (i.e. "it SHOULD NOT be propagated unless..."

- Last Paragraph: The term "integral number of calls" is again used.  Here,
I guess it's clear to me that you are referring to the units of measurement,
but the term "integral" still doesn't seem to make that clear. 

Section 3.2.5:
- Per comment on First Paragraph for 3.2, I think this is also a "SHOULD
NOT" or "RECOMMENDED NOT to".

Section 3.7: 
- First sentence: change the phrase: 
" for a GW can advertise routes" -> "for a GW to advertise routes" 

- Third sentence: change the phrase: 
"of advertised prefixes, For example:" -> "of advertised prefixes; for
example "

Section 3.9:
- The references to TRIP seem to be leftover from the earlier versions where
TGREP was a stripped down version of TRIP, particularly the first and last
sentences.  I also think the 2 sentences prior to the last sentence should
be deleted as they also refer to the "lightweight" version of TRIP.  

Section 4:
- Are these new attributes being registered as part of the IANA registry for
TRIP parameters or is there a new registry being proposed?  
- The references to the sections in which these are defined should be 3.1,
etc.

References: 
- Need to be updated to latest versions of drafts/RFCs (eg. RFC 3261).  
- What's the purpose of the H.323 reference in the context of this draft?  

Copyright Statement: Year needs updating.  

Regards,
Mary H. Barnes
mbarnes@nortelnetworks.com
_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptel@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel