Draft: draft-ietf-simple-rpid-09.txt Reviewer: Black_David@emc.com Review Date: Tuesday 11/22/2005 7:26 PM LC Date: 11/25/2005 Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. Review: ------- Overall, it's a well-written draft. Of the nits below, I would place some emphasis on improving the discussion of extensibility, as the cross-reference to RFC 3863 doesn't make everything obvious. The term "presentity" is used extensively in this draft; it is a new term (at least to me) that needs a definition and/or explanation, including how it relates to "person". My guess from context is that a presentity is a proxy for presence determination/reporting purposes. Section 1, Introduction - CPIM acronym used without expansion or prior definition. Please supply one. Section 3.1 Overview - The From/until? column in Figure 1 is not explained until a few paragraphs after the table. This might be a pagination issue, but the Notes? column in Figure 1 is not explained at all, which is an omission. The text should explain all the columns in the table just before or immediately after the table. Near the end of Section 3.1, the following sentence describes extensibility of enumerations: Enumerations can be extended by elements from other namespaces. There are a couple of important points that aren't obvious from this statement that should be explained here: - The namespaces for standard extensions are specified in Section 6. - Anyone can define an extension by defining a new namespace (not using a standard extensions namespace). In connection with the latter point ... Section 6, Extending RPID - It would be useful to adapt the following text from Section 4.2.1 of RFC 3863 to this section: Any developer can introduce their own element names, avoiding conflict by choosing an appropriate namespace URI. to explain how to define new enumeration values without conflict, and as part of this an explanation of "appropriate" would be useful. Paul Kyzivat's email address in the draft is not correct ... Mail Delivery System [MAILER-DAEMON@sj-inbound-b.cisco.com] said: The following message to was undeliverable. The reason for the problem: 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'5.1.1 ... User unknown'