Document: draft-ietf-sip-history-info-06.txt
review: Michael A. Patton
Date: 13 april 2005


Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC

I had two concerns, neither of which is strong enough to warrant
delaying the document, although if they are easy to fix that would be
worth it.

I'm not sure I believe the "stronger security" claim at the end of
Section 1.  I see this as analogous to the BGP problem.  Even though
each link was secured, in the end you can't be sure of anything except
the link closest to you.  Now, this _may_ be stronger than basic SIP
in some sense, but it's not really compelling to me.  Possibly because
I iniitally thought the per-hop securing of BGP was good enough until
in an hour-long discussion with a security person, I was finally
convinced that it only helped very marginally, if at all, and
contributed mostly to a false sense of security.

When I first started reading Section 2 I saw the "-req" notation as
short for request but later realized it was probably intended to be
short for requirement.  Is that correct?  I suggest that this
potential confusion could lead to readers making errors and, unless
it's following some established precedent, I'd recommend using
something like "-rqmt" which is less likely to be confused.


There were also a few typos I saw, which can just be fixed by RFC-Ed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------

At the very end of 4.1 one of the entries in the BNF is indented an
	extra space.

Section 4.5: "would try several some of the same places" either
	"several" or "some" should be removed,

Appendix A: "UA 1sends" => "UA1 sends"