Draft:  draft-ietf-sipping-capacity-attribute-00.txt
Reviewer: Brian Stucker
Review Date: Monday 9/4/2006 9:48 PM
Review Deadline: 
Status: pre-WGLC

Summary: Almost ready; question/nits

- I didn't follow the reason for having an anonymize and a bcc property. 
They seemed redundant. If I can hide a recipient completely, 
why have an anonymize action at all?
- The reason for having the 'count' attribute seemed very unclear. 
Why would hving duplicate entries in a URI list be considered a 
'good thing' (tm)? It seems like any reasonable pruning algorithm 
would immediately eliminate those duplicates to keep from sending 
requests to members of the URI list multiple times (knowingly).

Nit: I believe the reference format being used is not per IESG review
spec (ie. using [1] instead of [RFC 2119] in the text) they may want 
to fix that earlier rather than later.