Document: draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03.txt Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan [suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com] Review Date: 10/10/2008 IETF LC End Date: 10/02/2008 Summary: Almost ready for publication but I have a few comments. Major ===== * The draft assumes some kind of ordering requirement between namespaces. From my reading of RFC4412, this is not the case. "Thus, a message (or a call) with the following Resource-Priority header value: dsn-000001.8 for example, MUST NOT ever receive preferential treatment over a message, for example, with this Resource-Priority header value: dsn-000010.0 because they are two difference namespaces" e.g. Consider an RP actor that supports both the namespaces, dsn-000001 and dsn-000010. It could maintain an ordered list which contains dsn-000001.9 dsn-000001.8 dsn-000010.9 ... dsn-000010.0 and this is a valid priority order according to section 8.2 of RFC4412. Given this, why would this be considered invalid behavior if dsn-000001.8 DID receive preferential treatment over dsn-000010.0? This might be a major misunderstanding on my part. If so please correct me. Editorial ========= * Introduction Replace "Each will be preemption in nature" with "Each will be preemptive in nature" Nits ==== * Form feed characters missing between Pages Opinion(feel free to ignore) ============================ * Why so many 0's in the name of the namespace? It is really easy for someone to miss a 0 or two. * Maybe you have been asked this question million times before, but are these many namespaces really necessary? From RFC4412 "Jurisdictions SHOULD attempt to reuse existing IANA registered namespaces where possible, as a goal of this document is not to have unique namespaces per jurisdiction serving the same purpose, with the same usage of priority levels."