Return-Path: X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8E612D504; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:47:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.768 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.768 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xZnHODamfQo2; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:47:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD8E312B027; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:47:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1141; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1471484843; x=1472694443; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=12uYujhVVP+1sVyhDsWFHN9QshObhb/AQBKC1/NMzYY=; b=Jkr4SP4cvPvDKyJJMlu/sXWHUUTUNf5ybRFbpNCKvBx0E4fEH27oruVn XFvKNMP/aD4KzH8qzYOjmSonlxElJVb6AofCiFCZ3Acf/hO6SU5L+AnJf iFVE6l3Zje0vTfvHx8rByiS9XLBfmDvj6jRYmw/BNDabUYG6EANJG9tFk k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CIAgC9ErVX/5tdJa1eg0SBUge3VIF9h?= =?us-ascii?q?h0CgWk4FAIBAQEBAQEBXieEXgEBBAEnEy0SBQsCAQgYHhAyJQIEDgWIKQi+EwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARyGKoF4CIJNhBwkgyyCLwEEmUQBjx2PSYw7g?= =?us-ascii?q?3cBHjaDem6FaEZ/AQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,536,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="138876302" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Aug 2016 01:47:22 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com (xch-aln-018.cisco.com [173.36.7.28]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7I1lMvR029404 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 18 Aug 2016 01:47:22 GMT Received: from xch-aln-009.cisco.com (173.36.7.19) by XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com (173.36.7.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 20:47:22 -0500 Received: from xch-aln-009.cisco.com ([173.36.7.19]) by XCH-ALN-009.cisco.com ([173.36.7.19]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 20:47:22 -0500 From: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" To: Ben Campbell Thread-Topic: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24 Thread-Index: AQHR+NZaAjhneraDukqF90PUIVlheaBOLrIAgAAYXoA= Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 01:47:21 +0000 Message-ID: <91512439-BA38-4C47-BB71-DAB4EC2A6AFF@cisco.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.82.220.232] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1A7151508114EE418B5193522B0CBEDC@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "Paul Giralt \(pgiralt\)" , Elwyn Davies , General area reviewing team , "draft-ietf-insipid-session-id.all@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24 X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 01:47:25 -0000 > On Aug 17, 2016, at 8:20 PM, Paul Giralt (pgiralt) wr= ote: >=20 >=20 >> On Aug 17, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>=20 >>> Back to the current document: I have reread s3 of RFC 7206 and there a= re some points that need to be sorted out: >>>=20 >>> - The term 'end-to-end' is given a slightly specialized meaning in RFC = 7206. This is presumably carried through to the draft under review, but th= e need to refer to the end-to-end definition is not mentioned in the draft. >>>=20 >>> - The use of 'session' as a shorthand for the specific meaning of 'comm= unication session' defined in RFC 7206 ought to be emphasized within the dr= aft since the shorthand in RFC 7206 is technically limited to the RFC (ok, = this is somewhat nitpicking but easy to misinterpret.) >>=20 >> I agree with both of the above points. Authors? I think it is nuanced but worth pointing out those subtleties, especially s= ession->communication session. Thanks, Gonzalo >=20 > These are fair points and can easily be addressed with some additional ve= rbiage in Section 3.=20