[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Iptel] RE: Comments on draft-ietf-iptel-tgrep-01.txt
Mary,
Thanks for the review. Please find one comment inline.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary Barnes [mailto:mbarnes@nortelnetworks.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 10:32 PM
> To: 'manjax@cisco.com'; 'rajneesh@cisco.com';
> 'jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com'; 'hsalama@cisco.com'; 'dhaval@cisco.com'
> Cc: 'iptel@ietf.org'
> Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-iptel-tgrep-01.txt
>
>
> 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."
I suggest to leave out this definition. It's very restrictive and isn't
used in the remainder of the draft. The draft uses Carrier = Carrier
Service Provider.
Thanks
Hussein
>
> "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
>
--
Hussein F. Salama, Ph.D.
Consulting Systems Engineer
Cisco Systems International
135 Abdel Aziz Fahmy Street
Heliopolis, Cairo, Egypt
Work: +20 2 414 5877
Mobile: +20 12 790 0990
Fax: +20 2 414 5940
_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptel@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel