Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-10.txt (resent)

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

this was a gen-art review. So, I am cc:ing [e-mail]

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 26/11/2013 9:54 AM, Zongning wrote:
> Hi, Francis,
> 
> Just want to confirm if you are happy with this new revision, which we believe addressed your comments on editorial issues.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -Ning
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Zongning
>> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 3:47 PM
>> To: '[e-mail]'
>> Cc: 'Roni Even'; 'yunfei zhang'; jiangxingfeng 00215458
>> Subject: RE: review of draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-10.txt (resent)
>>
>> Hi, Francis,
>>
>> Could you please review the updated version to confirm if your
>> comments/suggestions have been appropriately resolved?
>>
>> URL:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-11.txt
>> Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-drr
>> Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-11
>> Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-11
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Ning
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 7:15 PM
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: review of draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-10.txt (resent)
>>>
>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>>>
>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>
>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>>> you may receive.
>>>
>>> Document: draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-10.txt
>>> Reviewer: Francis Dupont
>>> Review Date: 20130927
>>> IETF LC End Date: 20130930
>>> IESG Telechat date: unknown
>>>
>>> Summary: Almost Ready
>>>
>>> Major issues: None
>>>
>>> Minor issues: the title and the abstract must get an explicit expansion
>>> of the RELOAD acronym, e.g., the title shoud be:
>>>    An extension to REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) protocol
>>>    to support Direct Response Routing
>>>
>>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>>  - proposed changes to the title and to the abstract (both page 1)
>>>
>>>  - ToC page 2 and 10 page 13: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
>>>
>>>  - IMHO Authors' Addresses should be in the body so before the Appendix
>>>
>>>  - 2 page 3 in Publicly Reachable: closed system -> closed network
>>>
>>>  - 3.1.2 page 6 (in fact more for the RFC Editor): Figure 2 label
>>>   should be in the same page than the figure itself (or with other
>>>   words please avoid silly page breaks).
>>>
>>>  - 3.2.1 page 6: the responding peer receives a response...
>>>   if I am not fully lost it should be a request, not a response?
>>>
>>>  - 5.1 page 8 (4 times): e.g. -> e.g.,
>>>
>>>  - 5.2 page 9: I trust you (and the WG) for the delays...
>>>
>>>  - 8 page 13: drat -> draft (and IMHO document is far more appropriate
>>>   as it will be published as an RFC before this draft :-).
>>>
>>>  - 11.2 page 14: add a reference to RFC 6887 (and see below).
>>>
>>>  - A.1 page 16: endpoint- independent -> endpoint-independent
>>>
>>>  - A.1 page 16: even it doesn't provide a direct way of getting
>>>   the external assigned address (but read 11.6) PCP [RFC 6887]
>>>   must be added to UPnP-IGD and NAT-PMP. If you need some words,
>>>   one can consider PCP as a far more complete version of NAT-PMP.
>>>   BTW the "test address" comment applies too to PCP.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> [e-mail]
>>>
>>> PS: my checker complains about standalone (-> stand-alone), inline
>>> (?, please ignore), publically (-> publicly?, this should be addressed,
>>> even by the RFC Editor, as it occurs many times), etc.