Draft: draft-ietf-sipping-overload-reqs-00
Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins
Review Date: May 27, 2007
Review Deadline: May 21, 2007 (whoops!)
Status: WGLC

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but I do have a 
couple of comments.

Comments:

This draft is very well-written and very readable.

This draft seems to sidestep interaction with TCP (and SCTP) retransmission 
behavior. The current focus on UDP is the right place to start, but perhaps 
it's worth looking at non-datagram transports in a separate draft, and/or at 
some point in the future.

Is there any reason to mention interaction with secure transports?

Nits:

There are a bunch of nits identified (mostly related to the age of the 
current version of the draft, etc). Here's what got flagged, though.

idnits 2.04.07

tmp/draft-ietf-sipping-overload-reqs-00.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC 4748:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line,
     instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748.

  ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead
     of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC
     4748.


  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed
     Standard


  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** There are 5 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest 
one
     being 3 characters in excess of 72.

  ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the
     recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119
     keywords.

     RFC 2119 keyword, line 176: '...er is given, the client MUST act as 
if...'
     RFC 2119 keyword, line 180: '...to an alternate server.  It SHOULD 
NOT...'
     RFC 2119 keyword, line 184: '...      Servers MAY refuse the 
connectio...'
     RFC 2119 keyword, line 195: '...   at SHOULD NOT strength.  This is 
to...'

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not
     match the current year


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
     draft-ietf-sip-outbound-04


     Summary: 4 errors (**), 3 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).

     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information 
about
     the items above.