Document: Resource ReSerVation Protovol (RSVP) Extensions for Emergency Services Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern Review Date: 3-May-2008 IETF LC End Date: 9-May-2008 IESG Telechat date: N/A Summary: This document is ready for publication as a proposed standard. The reviewer would appreciate feedback on the minor items listed below. Comments: Slight Concern: The Application Resource Priority numerical values used by this RFC are the ones assigned for SIP usage. I have no problem with the reuse of the name spaces and priorities. My concern is that someone looking for documentation on the resource priority values for this may have difficulty realizing that they MUST look at the SIP tables, even for non-SIP based emergency communication. Is there any way to cause there to be a pointer in the RSVP portion of the registry to the SIP RPH registry? Question: Should this document include some explanation of what the PDP is to do when given multiple ALRP elements which it understands? For that matter, should there be explicit text saying that the PDP can ignore any ALRPs whose namespace the PDP does not understand? Minor Comments: My personal opinion is that using "call" to describe the sessions being established is probably not the best choice. In many contexts which will need to reference this document, call has a much more specific meaning. It is not clear why "session" is not sufficient. (But I presume that the particular terminology is the result of significant consideration, and therefore my personal reaction is not a reason to hold up this document.) It seems very odd that the format of the Admission Priority Policy Element has 32 consecutive reserved bits. It will work as written, and I presume that there was a reason.