Draft:  draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-03.txt
Reviewer: Mary Barnes
Review Date: 25 July 2006
Review Deadline: 20 July 2006
Status: WGLC  

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a Proposed Standard, updating RFC 3264.  However, there is one question and some nits that should be addressed before publication, along with the clarifications requested by the other reviewers (although I'm okay with keeping the textual redundancy between sections 3.1 and 3.2).   Some of the nits are very picky, but I think it's better for the SIPPING WG to produce a doc that minimizes the changes the RFC editor might make for readability.  

Section 3.1:
- first paragraph: add reference to DNS (i.e. [8]) (the reference does not appear until later in the 4th paragraph). 
- 3rd paragraph (for readability):  replace "(which...domain)."  with  ", which...domain." 

Section 3.1.1: 
- second main paragraph (i.e., paragraph after the indented text addressing 2543 issues), 2nd sentence: change "...session since without it, the upstream..." to "...session; otherwise, the upstream ..."
- second main paragraph, last sentence:  change the use of "will contain the proxy's" to "contains the proxy's" (2 occurences). 
- 5th paragraph: "...sports an address..." - I would think either "has" or "support" would be a good replacement for "sports".  
- 1st pargraph after the example (Note: you might also want to add a Figure reference for the example): I would suggest rewriting that paragraph as present tense - it makes it less wordy and more definitive.  In addition, the second sentence reads very awkwardly, so I suggest to change from:
"  It's route set will include, as the first destination, the proxy's IPv6 interface."
to: 
"  Its route set includes the proxy's IPv6 interface as the first destination.

Section 4:

- 8th paragraph (1st paragraph following the numbered list):  Dale had suggested that the "(i.e., TURN)" be changed to an "e.g." since it is an example. However, I have a general question as to whether the TURN reference should be normative (it is listed as a normative reference in the Reference section), which means the "i.e," (meaning) is more appropriate?  I would also suggest adding an explicit reference to the TURN document at this point.  (Note also the suggestion below to update the TURN reference).  

- 9th paragraph, last sentence (a slightly different change than Dale suggested): 
change "... likely deploy TURN relays as a NAT-traversal,..." 
    to "... likely to deploy TURN relays as a NAT-traversal solution, ..."

References:
- TURN reference [10] should now be to the BEHAVE WG document: draft-ietf-behave-turn-01
- IDNITS has a minor complaint about an extra space after "Session" in reference [13].