Re: [Sip] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-sip-outbound-17

[Black_David at emc.com]

I just diff'ed -18 against -17.  Both of the RFC reference issues
noted in my Gen-ART review of -17 have been addressed in the -18
version.  The quick turnaround is impressive.

Thanks,
--David
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy at cisco.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 2:25 PM
> To: Black, David; Francois Audet
> Cc: Rohan Mahy; Gen Art; SIP List; Keith Drage; Dean Willis
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-sip-outbound-17
> 
> 
> David - thanks for the careful review ... more inline.
> 
> 
> On May 20, 2009, at 6:50 PM, black_david at emc.com wrote:
> 
> > Cullen and Rohan,
> >
> > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
> >
> > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
> > comments you may receive.
> >
> > Document: draft-ietf-sip-outbound-17
> > Reviewer: David L. Black
> > Review Date: May 20, 2009
> > IETF LC End Date: May 26, 2009
> >
> > Summary:
> > This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
> > that should be fixed before publication.
> >
> > Comments:
> > This is a well-written document about using SIP through a NAT,
> > including handling information that needs to flow inbound
> > through a NAT towards a User Agent and keep-alive techniques
> > for connections that may pass through a NAT.
> >
> > The only nits worth mentioning are a couple of RFC reference
> > issues found by idnits 2.11.11:
> >
> >  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3489 (Obsoleted by RFC 5389)
> 
> This suspect we should move this to  be informative. We mostly  
> reference 5389 but have one part were we want to say that 
> there are no  
> backwards compatibly requirements with the 3489.
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this 
> intentional?): RFC 4346
> >     (Obsoleted by RFC 5246)
> 
> It seems most people are not sure about which version of TLS 
> we should  
> be referencing on an extension to 3261. I'm going to ask the 
> security  
> ADs for their advice here. (We have the same question on a bunch of  
> drafts)
> 
> 
> Cullen <in my individual contributor role>
> 
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --David
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> > +1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> > black_david at emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> > Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> > Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
> 
> 
>