Draft: draft-ietf-sipping-cc-framework-o9
Reviewer: John Elwell
Review Date: 2007-12-14
Review Deadline: 2007-12-31
Status: Post-WGLC 

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be fixed before publication. 

My comments have been dealt with as follows:

General comment. Not addressed.

Comment 1. Addressed.

Comment 2. Not addressed.

Comment 3. Not addressed.

Comment 4. Partly addressed. It appears that the term "session dialog"
has been removed, but there are still many instances of "dialog" and
"SIP dialog", apparently meaning the same thing. We should use only one
term. Since there is also the term "voice dialog" meaning something
different, it would be better never to use the term "dialog" without
qualification (e.g., "SIP dialog"), except in contexts where it is clear
such as "dialog event package".

Comment 5. Not addressed satisfactorily. It now says that for the
peer-to-peer approach "setup time is shorter (fewer messages are
required to be sent by the initiator of the action)". On what evidence
is this statement made? As far as I can see, the initiator of the action
in the example I gave in my comment sends the same number of messages in
both the P2P case and the 3PCC case (REFER request, either BYE request
or BYE response).

Comment 6. Addressed.

Comment 7. I will withdraw.

Comment 8. Addressed.

Comment 9. Addressed.