document: draft-ietf-mmusic-img-framework-08.txt
From: Spencer Dawkins
Date: 18 januari 2005 


I reviewed this specification for Harald as a General Area Review Team
member.

This specification is almost ready for publication as an
Informational RFC.

I found Figure 1 to be very helpful - if it could be
introduced sooner, that would be even better.

The discussion in 4.2
ignores most of the "reliability" requirements in the companion
draft - is "announce" reliable? it would be best to come out and say
"yes" or "no".

The existing standards in section 5.1 need specific
references for each protocol.

SAP gets more words of description than
HTTP and SIP put together, and most of these words are explaining why
SAP isn't a good fit for the framework. Could this be shortened (to
"SAP isn't appropriate for these reasons")?

There are a few "be use to"s that should be "be used to".

Does the WG have a view on whether
ALC is likely to be insufficient or not, and why (in 5.2.1)?

In the
security considerations section, "IMG Authenticity" is included, but
this is "origin authentication", not "sender authentication".

In general, both drafts sidestep the description of an IMG transceiver.
This IS defined in the terms, but there's very little text that
describes them.