Hi all: I have performed an Operations Directorate review of draft-holmberg-dispatch-iotl-03 "This document defines a new SIP URI parameter, 'iotl'. The parameter can be used in a SIP URI to indicate that the entity associated with the address, or an entity responsible for the host part of the address, represents the end of a specific traffic leg (or multiple traffic legs)." - - - - This draft is intended to be the reference RFC for the SIP iotl parameter. It clearly defines what this parameter is intended to do, and specifies what's needed for SIP implementations to use it. The diagram showing SIP connections (Figure 1) and the detailed explanations in its Appendix seem to explain it very clearly. Readers are expected to have a good understanding of SIP, I had to look up the meanings of B2BUA and S-CSCF - I guess reference to RFC 3261 (SIP protocol) is sufficient here. The last few paragraphs of section 5.1 (Usage) indicate to me that the authors have considered how newer SIP implementations (i.e. those that support the iotl parameter) should interact with older implementations. Section 6 gives an ABNF description of allowed values for iotl. The first four values are the ones explained in this draft, the remaining one is other-itol, which may be any string of other-iotl-char, i.e. any string of alphanum or - characters. However, the draft does not say anything about how an other-iotl value may be used. Surely the draft should say what this is intended for, or just leave it out completely? Just one typo: The last paragraph of section 1 is repeated as section 2 (Applicability). It should be deleted. Cheers, Nevil Co-chair, IPFIX and EMAN WGs -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nevil Brownlee Computer Science Department Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941 The University of Auckland FAX: +64 9 373 7453 Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand