Document: draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-package-05.txt
Review: Michael A. Patton
Date: 31 mars 2005 


Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has a few
	things that I'd like to see cleared up before publication.
	The first one can be done as a normal part of RFC prep, the
	second probably needs some new text, which would need review.


In Section 1, first paragraph, references to RFCs are sometimes done
	with the reference number (and not the RFC number) and
	sometimes with the RFC number (and not the reference number).
	Besides being inconsistent, this makes it hard to notice the
	correlation between the various references.  I'd suggest
	making ALL the references in the form "RFC3265 [1]" which is
	clear and makes it consistent.
There are other places in the doc where RFCs are mentioned without
	references.  They should be added.


The last paragraph of the Introduction seemed just a bit sparse to
	me.  But, as I'm unfamiliar with the subject area this may
	just be my lack of background.  This does suggest that the
	paragraph might be improved with a little more explanation.
	On the other hand it _is_ the introduction, so it's not
	supposed to be complete.
Then, when I get to Section 5 which does have the definitions, I find
	myself asking what these have to do with the rest of the
	document.  It seems to me that these are general parameters
	and not specific to this document.  I think the document needs
	to explain what these are for somewhere...


Typos:

Abstract: "an receive notifications" => "and receive notifications"

Section 3.7.1 nearly at the end:
	   "the replaced invitation transition transitions to"
	=> "the replaced invitation transitions to"

Section 3.7.2: paragraph 4 has an unmatched open paren.

Section 4.1.6.2: second paragraph has an unmatched open paren.

The doubly nested parens at the end of paragraph 2 in Section 5.2 are
	confusing, and suggest that that sentence should be rewritten
	as several to avoid the nesting.


Random comment:  I would have used Dave instead of Bob and then the VM
mailbox could have been daves-not-here-man... but that joke's probably
US centric...