[Resending ... had the wrong address for Roger Marshall. Sorry. ] I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-psap-callback-10 Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani Review Date: Sep-20-2013 IETF LC End Date: Sep-27-2013 IESG Telechat date: Unknown This draft is basically ready for publication, but has a couple of minor issues that should be fixed (or at least looked at) before publication. Major: 0 Minor: 2 Nits: 4 (to improve readability) Minor: - S5.2: Maybe I am missing something here, but I did not see any proposed requirement as I read the text until this point. At least I do not see a explicit requirement. The text in S5.1 constitutes an implicit requirement in that it asks the SIP UA to override user interface configurations when an incoming call has "Priority: psap-callback" header AND the SIP UA has recently placed a call to an emergency service. Is this the requirement you allude to in the first sentence of S5.2? If so, may be better to explicitly pose this as a requirement. The second paragraph of S5.2 constitutes a separate requirement. Is it worth spelling these out explicitly as requirements? - S5.3, last paragraph: It seems to me that the SIP UA is the authority insofar as it can maintain state that an emergency call was made a short while ago. Consequently, it would seem beneficial to couple the presence of the callback marking with this state and override local UA behaviour. At least, this alleviates the eventuality that somehow the VoIP provider forgot to scrub the marking AND the UA never made an emergency call (thereby allowing spam through). Now, if it is your intent to keep the UA as stateless as possible, then overriding local UA behaviour based on solely the callback marking is fine. But I do not know what your assumptions are here with respect to state maintained in the UA. So please determine if this approach of asking UA to couple state information with the marking makes sense or not. If not, feel free to disregard, but I did want to point it out. Nits: - S3, first paragraph: "As explained in Section 1 a SIP entity examines an incoming PSAP callback by comparing the domain of the PSAP with the destination domain of the emergency call." Here, I would suggest adding a small phrase as follows: s/destination domain of the emergency call./destination domain of the outbound emergency call placed earlier./ - S3.1: s/synchronized as to state/synchronized,/ This improves readability since the text as it currently stand is hard to parse. - S3.3, second paragraph: s/Similarly to/Similar to/ - S3.5, first paragraph: s/later does leave/later leaves/ Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) Email: vkg at {bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani at alcatel-lucent.com Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq