[P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-07

[Alissa Cooper]

I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF last call. There are a few edits that need to be made before this document can be last-called:

1) The document needs a security considerations section. It is perfectly fine if this section mostly points to the security considerations of the other p2psip documents, but it needs to be there.

2) Section 3.5 and Section 7 have text marked as “OPEN ISSUE.” These need to be resolved.

3) Section 1 should be deleted.


While you’re making changes, please address the following:

4) Fix the ID nits.

5) I think Section 3.5 should reference RFC 6762 and 6763 rather than Bonjour.

6) The Wikipedia references in Section 5 and 6 don’t really seem appropriate and don’t add much value, so I would suggest deleting them.

7) References to “the RELOAD base draft” should not call it a draft and should reference the RFC.


Thanks,
Alissa

[David Bryan]

Thank you very much for the review and comments.

I will look over the comments, and revise shortly.

Post by Alissa Cooper
I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF last call. There are
1) The document needs a security considerations section. It is perfectly
fine if this section mostly points to the security considerations of the
other p2psip documents, but it needs to be there.
2) Section 3.5 and Section 7 have text marked as “OPEN ISSUE.” These need
to be resolved.
3) Section 1 should be deleted.
4) Fix the ID nits.
5) I think Section 3.5 should reference RFC 6762 and 6763 rather than Bonjour.
6) The Wikipedia references in Section 5 and 6 don’t really seem
appropriate and don’t add much value, so I would suggest deleting them.
7) References to “the RELOAD base draft” should not call it a draft and
should reference the RFC.
Thanks,
Alissa
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

[Alissa Cooper]

Hi David,

Do you have an estimate for when this will be completed?

Thanks,
Alissa

Post by David Bryan
Thank you very much for the review and comments.
I will look over the comments, and revise shortly.
1) The document needs a security considerations section. It is perfectly fine if this section mostly points to the security considerations of the other p2psip documents, but it needs to be there.
2) Section 3.5 and Section 7 have text marked as “OPEN ISSUE.” These need to be resolved.
3) Section 1 should be deleted.
4) Fix the ID nits.
5) I think Section 3.5 should reference RFC 6762 and 6763 rather than Bonjour.
6) The Wikipedia references in Section 5 and 6 don’t really seem appropriate and don’t add much value, so I would suggest deleting them.
7) References to “the RELOAD base draft” should not call it a draft and should reference the RFC.
Thanks,
Alissa
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>

[David Bryan]

Thanks for the note -- quite soon. Between end of semester, holiday travel,
and now start of the semester there was no time, but things have cleared up
and it is back on my list.

David

Post by Alissa Cooper
Hi David,
Do you have an estimate for when this will be completed?
Thanks,
Alissa
Thank you very much for the review and comments.
I will look over the comments, and revise shortly.

Post by Alissa Cooper
I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF last call. There
are a few edits that need to be made before this document can be
1) The document needs a security considerations section. It is perfectly
fine if this section mostly points to the security considerations of the
other p2psip documents, but it needs to be there.
2) Section 3.5 and Section 7 have text marked as “OPEN ISSUE.” These need
to be resolved.
3) Section 1 should be deleted.
4) Fix the ID nits.
5) I think Section 3.5 should reference RFC 6762 and 6763 rather than Bonjour.
6) The Wikipedia references in Section 5 and 6 don’t really seem
appropriate and don’t add much value, so I would suggest deleting them.
7) References to “the RELOAD base draft” should not call it a draft and
should reference the RFC.
Thanks,
Alissa
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

[Alissa Cooper]

Great, thank you.

Thanks for the note -- quite soon. Between end of semester, holiday travel, and now start of the semester there was no time, but things have cleared up and it is back on my list.
David
Hi David,
Do you have an estimate for when this will be completed?
Thanks,
Alissa

Post by David Bryan
Thank you very much for the review and comments.
I will look over the comments, and revise shortly.
1) The document needs a security considerations section. It is perfectly fine if this section mostly points to the security considerations of the other p2psip documents, but it needs to be there.
2) Section 3.5 and Section 7 have text marked as “OPEN ISSUE.” These need to be resolved.
3) Section 1 should be deleted.
4) Fix the ID nits.
5) I think Section 3.5 should reference RFC 6762 and 6763 rather than Bonjour.
6) The Wikipedia references in Section 5 and 6 don’t really seem appropriate and don’t add much value, so I would suggest deleting them.
7) References to “the RELOAD base draft” should not call it a draft and should reference the RFC.
Thanks,
Alissa
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>

[Alissa Cooper]

Hi David,

What is the status of this?

Thanks,
Alissa

Post by Alissa Cooper
Great, thank you.

Thanks for the note -- quite soon. Between end of semester, holiday travel, and now start of the semester there was no time, but things have cleared up and it is back on my list.
David
Hi David,
Do you have an estimate for when this will be completed?
Thanks,
Alissa

Post by David Bryan
Thank you very much for the review and comments.
I will look over the comments, and revise shortly.
1) The document needs a security considerations section. It is perfectly fine if this section mostly points to the security considerations of the other p2psip documents, but it needs to be there.
2) Section 3.5 and Section 7 have text marked as “OPEN ISSUE.” These need to be resolved.
3) Section 1 should be deleted.
4) Fix the ID nits.
5) I think Section 3.5 should reference RFC 6762 and 6763 rather than Bonjour.
6) The Wikipedia references in Section 5 and 6 don’t really seem appropriate and don’t add much value, so I would suggest deleting them.
7) References to “the RELOAD base draft” should not call it a draft and should reference the RFC.
Thanks,
Alissa
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

[David Bryan]

Hi all,

A new version of the draft has been submitted. Alissa, thanks for your
close review, I have addressed the issues you mention (see below), and
don't believe there are actually any current open issues, except possibly
changing this away from the language around pre-5378 contributions. I am
fine with moving it to the newer disclaimer (conforms to 5378), and will
attempt to ask each author to comment on this thread that they also are

Post by Alissa Cooper
I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF last call. There are
1) The document needs a security considerations section. It is perfectly
fine if this section mostly points to the security considerations of the
other p2psip documents, but it needs to be there.

Added, along with an IANA considerations (there are no considerations)

Post by Alissa Cooper
2) Section 3.5 and Section 7 have text marked as “OPEN ISSUE.” These need
to be resolved.

After review, I believe these have all been resolved. They have been
removed.

3) Section 1 should be deleted.
Section 1 (editors comments) has been deleted.

Post by Alissa Cooper
4) Fix the ID nits.

The only nits now are the pre-5378 contributions and the fact that it
somehow believes one of the figures contains code comments (it doesn't).
There are no other outstanding nits.

Post by Alissa Cooper
5) I think Section 3.5 should reference RFC 6762 and 6763 rather than Bonjour.
6) The Wikipedia references in Section 5 and 6 don’t really seem
appropriate and don’t add much value, so I would suggest deleting them.

Agreed and corrected.

Post by Alissa Cooper
7) References to “the RELOAD base draft” should not call it a draft and
should reference the RFC.

Fixed. In addition, RFCs 7363 and 7374 have issued since the last revision.
I have corrected them as well. -sip and -diagnostics are still drafts, and
are still referenced (current version) as such.

Again, thank you for the review and sorry for the delay in iteration.

Post by Alissa Cooper
Thanks,
Alissa
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

[Dean Willis]

Agreed on all counts.

Post by David Bryan
Hi all,
1) The document needs a security considerations section. It is perfectly fine if this section mostly points to the security considerations of the other p2psip documents, but it needs to be there.
Added, along with an IANA considerations (there are no considerations)
2) Section 3.5 and Section 7 have text marked as “OPEN ISSUE.” These need to be resolved.
After review, I believe these have all been resolved. They have been removed.
3) Section 1 should be deleted.
Section 1 (editors comments) has been deleted.
4) Fix the ID nits.
The only nits now are the pre-5378 contributions and the fact that it somehow believes one of the figures contains code comments (it doesn't). There are no other outstanding nits.
5) I think Section 3.5 should reference RFC 6762 and 6763 rather than Bonjour.
6) The Wikipedia references in Section 5 and 6 don’t really seem appropriate and don’t add much value, so I would suggest deleting them.
Agreed and corrected.
7) References to “the RELOAD base draft” should not call it a draft and should reference the RFC.
Fixed. In addition, RFCs 7363 and 7374 have issued since the last revision. I have corrected them as well. -sip and -diagnostics are still drafts, and are still referenced (current version) as such.
Again, thank you for the review and sorry for the delay in iteration.
Thanks,
Alissa
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip