Draft:  draft-ietf-sipping-gruu-reg-event-06.t xt
Reviewer: Gray, Eric [Eric.Gray@marconi.com]
Review Date: Thursday 8/24/2006 3:39 PM CST
IETF LC Date: 8/24/2006

Summary: I believe this draft is fairly complete and nearly ready for
publishing as a Proposed Standard RFC. I have a few minor comments:

GRUU Definition -

	In the abstract, and in part of the introduction, it seems 
clear that this memo is intended to bridge a gap resulting from the
introduction of a new <object> (defined somewhere) and a format 
(defined in RFC 3680).  I had to look a few times to figure out
_where_ the GRUU is defined.

	(Yes, it's obvious once you see it...)

	I believe that this may be an artifact of the difficulty in 
using the draft name for the memo (your reference [3]) in which it 
seems that the GRUU is actually defined.  Unfortunately, the way 
these sections are worded now, it will not be easy to fix this when 
your reference 3 becomes an RFC (which it must do before this memo 
may become an RFC).

	The problem is that it seems your draft is bridging a gap
between RFC 3680 and <something> and it would help if the wording 
of the abstract and introduction didn't obfuscate this.  I would
suggest possibly using "RFC XXXX" and including a note to the RFC
Editor to the effect that "RFC XXXX" should be replaced with the
actual RFC number when both are published. 

Security Example? - 

	In your security section, you make the following statement - 

   "The proxy may control access as desired, just as it may for 
    the AOR."

In my opinion, it would be good if you could provide either an
explicit example (one or more) of what you mean by "control access
as desired", or provide a more explicit reference to where this is
already described for AOR.

Minor wording issue (NITs) -

	Also in the security section, there are a few wording, or 
grammar glitches:

   "Security considerations for the registration event package is"

SHOULD BE

   "Security considerations for the registration event package are"

AND

   "its disclosure may arguably be considered of minimal security risk"

is a bit awkward, and I would suggest 

   "its disclosure may arguably be considered a minimal security risk"

(When you use "of", you imply that "minimal security risk" is a group
 or class that "its disclosure" may belong to, and that is a somewhat
 more formal association than I believe exists in this case)