Subject: [dispatch] AD review: draft-vanelburg-dispatch-private-network-ind

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:13:04 -0500

I have reviewed this draft in preparation for IETF LC.  Two comment to be
addressed along with other LC comments:

1. In Section 3.6, there is the following sentence:
"""
The Spec(T) need not specify the same contents and trust domain boundaries
that are used for other header fields like for example the
P-Asserted-Identity.
"""
That reads to me as if the requirements for defining a Spec(T) for this
document are different than those in RFC 3324.  Would the following
clarification be more accurate?
"""
The same information is required to specify a Spec(T) for purposes of
P-Private-Network-Indication as for P-Asserted-Identity [RFC3324].
 However, if a network is using P-Private-Network-Indication as well as
other private headers (such as P-Asserted-Identity), the Spec(T) for each
header may be different from the others.
"""

2. Please reformat the IANA Considerations to more clearly specify what
IANA should put in the registry.  The IANA Considerations section of
draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis does this well:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13#section-7

I have requested IETF LC.

Thanks,
--Richard