Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload-08

Jaime Jiménez <> Tue, 05 May 2015 10:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B80E1A8894; Tue, 5 May 2015 03:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YkVjTBJpuqL9; Tue, 5 May 2015 03:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29DC71A8845; Tue, 5 May 2015 03:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f79b66d000001131-78-55489c2aefef
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E0.CF.04401.A2C98455; Tue, 5 May 2015 12:32:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Tue, 5 May 2015 12:32:09 +0200
From: Jaime Jiménez <>
To: Roni Even <>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART LC review of draft-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload-08
Thread-Index: AdCBBD9MmCkyg/82Shmpi/3Dv+vroQGCbn0A
Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 10:32:09 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <040301d08104$414ecd00$c3ec6700$>
In-Reply-To: <040301d08104$414ecd00$c3ec6700$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D0D954D7-0304-4AD5-86B1-ABE952C039E5"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrKIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja7WHI9Qg76dchanF55jsbj66jOL xbON81ks/rYzO7B47Jx1l91jyZKfTB5fLn9mC2CO4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mo4+vIXW8GaSYwV 2370sjQwvm9m7GLk4JAQMJG4tCGyi5ETyBSTuHBvPRuILSRwlFFiYaN+FyMXkL2YUWJ620dm kASbgLPEp2eN7CC2iICaxOu1n9lAipgFdjNKHGxYwAwyVFjAVeL1nQyIGjeJKRO3sUDYRhL/ 27+C9bIIqEg8uP2fEcTmFbCXaD/+gh1isbnExcafYLdxClhI7H+eDhJmBLrt+6k1TCA2s4C4 xK0n85kgbhaReHjxNBuELSrx8vE/VghbSWLR7c9MEKdNYZR4fnInK8QuQYmTM5+wTGAUnYVk 1ixkdbOQ1EEUJUnMfniEHcLWlli28DUzhK0psb97OQumuIZE57eJrBC2qcTrox8ZIWxriRm/ DrJB2IoSU7ofsi9g5F7FKFqcWpyUm25krJdalJlcXJyfp5eXWrKJERjvB7f8Vt3BePmN4yFG AQ5GJR5eBRWPUCHWxLLiytxDjNIcLErivHbGh0KEBNITS1KzU1MLUovii0pzUosPMTJxcEo1 MDpM31PpqNLu7rpIwrT9sPpvTYVXT/lTzhyP/Jun9OjjNu7F/YXxYiLnns62nlXLn+hS6DTV wNnrkbiU21kFHt/PCvyv36XNnBgqPl90a350nazH1os1/19yigv7VvPOOSnuvUw+g8tDce28 hN/x+ysX77X/UmVwJE4jQOiaHFuuZfg0vpfSSizFGYmGWsxFxYkAbB38IdgCAAA=
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 May 2015 06:37:47 -0700
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload-08
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 10:32:26 -0000


thanks for the comments, replies are inline. I will add those changes to the draft once the last call process is over.

- - Jaime Jimenez

> On 27 Apr 2015, at 19:07, Roni Even <> wrote:
>  <>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < <> <>>.
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.
> Document:  draft-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload-08
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review Date:2015–4-27
> IETF LC End Date: 2015–5-13
> IESG Telechat date: 
> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Standard Track  RFC.
> Major issues:
> Minor issues:
> Nits/editorial comments:
> Some questions about the terminology in section 3
> Client – is this different from RFC6940, if not why repeat?
-- You are correct, it is the same, we can just add a reference to RFC6940

> Router – this is a different name for a peer? I also noticed that it is used once in the document (defining constrained node) where it does not provide any value
-- Also agree, we could simply leave it in peer.
> Proxy and Proxy node – Why do you need both terms. In section 7 it uses proxy(PN) like it is the same term.
-- This was done to differenciate between physical node and the role they play functionally. For the spec itself only the functional roles are important, the others just give a better picture of the types of nodes you can have. We could just call both Proxy Node if it helps. 
> Constrained node the last sentence “In the latter case the node is often connected to a  continuous energy power supply” it is not clear what is the latter case, also what type of node is meant. Note that there is a redundant “either a” in the previous sentence.

-- Correct it should be:
"A CN is always either a Sensor or an Actuator.  If it is an actuator, the node is often connected to a continuous energy power supply."