Draft:  draft-ietf-sipping-ipv6-torture-tests-01.txt
Reviewer: Mahendran, AC [mahendra@qualcomm.com]
Review Date: 4/6/2007 
Review Deadline: 4/6/2007
Status: WGLC 

Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. 

Comments: 

1) In section 3, text: "This document does not, however, address these
issues.  Instead, a companion document [ID.sip-trans] provides more
guidance on these."

It would good to complete the sentence by appending "issues" to the end
of the sentence.

2) In 4.3, text: "Consider the REGISTER request below.  The sender of
the request intended to specify a port number (5070) to contact a
server, but inadvertently, put the port number inside the closing "]" of
the IPv6 reference. "

s/put/puts (or inserts)

3) Sections 4.3/4.4 mention about the (un)/ambiguous ports in
Request-URI. This, however, applies to other headers (e.g., Via header
[in sent-by production rule], and the Contact header) as well. If
possible, can we mention that in the description?

4) General comment (applies to the entire doc): Intent of "Message
Details" is not clear. It would be good include a small description on
the intent of "Message Details" field. It is descriptive in some
examples (e.g., "ipv6-good", "ipv6-bad" etc), whereas, it does not mean
much in others (e.g., "param1", "param2" etc).

Note: I see it being used in RFC 4475, but there is no description in
that document too.

5) In Section 4.4, text: "Message Details: port-umabiguous" 

s/umabiguous/unambiguous

Also, the spelling needs to be fixed in the title of the section as
well.

6) In section 4.6, 

Text:

     o=assistant 971731711378798081 0 IN IP6 2001:db8::20
     s=Live video feed for today's meeting
     c=IN IP6 2001:db8::1

Is there are reason why you made the IPv6 address in the "o=" line
different from the "c=" line? If not, it'd be better to make them the
same.

7) In section 4.5, 

Text:

     OPTIONS sip:[2001:db8::10] SIP/2.0
     To: sip:user@example.com
     From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
     <allOneLine>
     Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1];received=2001:db8::9:255;
     branch=z9hG4bKas3
     </allOneLine>
     Call-ID: SSG95523997077@hlau_4100
     Max-Forwards: 70
     Contact: "Caller" <sip:caller@[2001:db8::1]>
     CSeq: 921 OPTIONS
     Content-Length: 0

The IPv6 address in the "Contact" header is different from the address
in the "Via" header e.g., "9" is missing from the address in the Contact
header. If this intentional, it would be good to note it in the
description.

The same comment applies to the examples in sections 4.6 and 4.8.

8) In section 4.7,

Text:

     BYE sip:user@host.example.com SIP/2.0
     Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1]:6050;branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
     Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.1;branch=z9hG4bKjhja8781hjuaij65144
     <allOneLine>
     Via: SIP/2.0/TCP [2001:db8::9:255];branch=z9hG4bK451jj;
     received=192.0.2.200
     </allOneLine>
     Call-ID: 997077@lau_4100
     Max-Forwards: 70
     CSeq: 89187 BYE
     To: sip:user@example.net;tag=9817--94
     From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
     Content-Length: 0


The "To" header contains the domain "example.net" but the Request-URI
contains "example.com". While this is possible, I think it'd be better
to make both these domains the same (e.g., example.net).