Re: [decade] reorganized -req

[Zhang Peng <[e-mail]>]

Hi Richard and All,

	Here are some comments on the recently revised version of -req document.

	First, I noticed that the protocol flow including DRP and SDT is included in -req. I wonder if this is a good choice, since it is more like a design rather than a requirement. Could someone explain the rationale? 

	For the naming requirements, I suggest that the "the naming scheme should support that consumer can validate the name-object binding, i.e., can check that the object content is what the name claims to be". The rationale is that consumer now obtains the object from DECADE server, and in turn is uploaded by some content provider that is not trustworthy.
	 
	I suggest that the terminology 2.5 "Provider" should better be "content provider". Otherwise, it may be confused with "DECADE storage provider" of 2.3. Also, 2.9 is referring to "content provider", not "provider". Correspondingly, "consumer" should be "content consumer". But we should also comment that we would use shorter term "provider" and "consumer" if there is no ambiguity.

	Section 7.2 is not so clear to me. The rationale has not stated the reason for this very well. 
	
	In section 8.1, the term "user" is not defined by us. Should we use "client" instead?

	In Section 9, should we also include "overload condition" which appear in section 4.1.3.1 of current version?
	
	Some minor revisions: 
	
		- Section 2.3: "that" should be removed;
		- Section 6.1:  Should be "After a DECADE-compatible client owns an account on a DECADE-compatible server, it should be able to read data from and write data to the server once authorized by the server.", and it should be following section 6.2.
		- Section 6.2: I think it is better to be "Access to an account on a server MUST be granted to a provider based on cryptographic security"
		- Section 6.3 "resoutces" -> "resources"
		- Section 6.9 "disovery" -> "discovery"
		- Section 7.5 "enerate" -> "generate"
		- Section 8.4 "stoarge" -> "storage"
		


	I would like to help revise if you don't have time.

B,

Peng.


On Jul 7, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Y. Richard Yang wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> We did a substantial reorganization of the -req documents. It is attached to this email. Any early feedback will be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Richard
> <draft-ietf-decade-reqs-all_v06.txt><draft-ietf-decade-reqs-all_v06.xml>