Draft:  draft-ietf-sipping-toip-04.txt
Reviewer: Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@nortel.com)
Review Date: Friday 4/7/2006 9:39 PM CST
Review Deadline: 4/7/2006
Status: post WGLC | WGLC | Interim review | Initial review | Expert Review 

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

I assume you've seen Tom's comments on the list on the scope of the draft within IETF (supported also by Collin Perkins).  Tom is in the process of seeing if he can put together text that he thinks might resolve those concerns and thus allow us to progress the doc. 

In the meantime, I was doing a final review of the document and ran it against IDnits and came up with the following (I've inserted a few comments inline there enclosed by []). In addition, there are also a few other minor editorial nits and a general question listed.  It's easier to go ahead and change these things now than have to do RFC Editor notes to address later or expect the RFC editor to catch them. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

idnits 1.90 

tmp/draft-ietf-sipping-toip-04.txt(1570): Line contains FQDN 'www.annies.nl' in position 3; this doesn't match RFC2606's suggested ".example" or ".example.(com|org|net)".

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
    
    Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate...

    the boilerplate looks good.

    No nits found.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
    Nothing found here (but these checks do not cover all of
    1id-guidelines.txt yet).

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  - The "Author's Address" (or "Authors' Addresses") section title is
    misspelled. [Dale's comment on the list]
  - The document seems to use RFC 2119 keywords, but does not seem to
    contain the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate [I think this is okay, you've
    just got slightly different wording]


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Editorial nits:
----------------------

-  Title: expand SIP 

-  Are there really two different definitions for text bridging (the 3rd and 5th definitions on page 5)?

-  page 6: definition for GSM - the "of" should be "for" and "communication" should be plural, thus it should read "Global System for Mobile Communications"

General Question:
-----------------
- there are quite a few author's listed in section 10 (more than the 5 recommended).  Are these all authors or could you move some of these folks into a Contributor section?  This would make the final publication of the doc much easier as it means the RFC editor only needs a response from one author rather than 8 to complete the document. Although, I think you might be okay by just adding the annotation, ", Ed." following your name on the front page (that may be implied by only your name being upfront, but it's likely better to be explicit).