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

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Mon, 27 April 2015 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64BCC1A1A5D; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 ZZBwPWDUHlA3; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 382301A891A; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wiun10 with SMTP id n10so95734411wiu.1; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :thread-index:content-language; bh=c3rntHl04J6SdFYq6MZnmmsecMYzM9yGR1KvQeLcQpQ=; b=vfUQLpjd4j/mm2xqHV+0YvODBvWgHAqipPMPCQ71cwFa1X73jzqDlnPCG2OcCtT3vO 0pyxoQEnvFMFulAp5l67VACo8sRt/N6/oOt9DWwWoINm4FxjEZgrVInHgwFih1qtmomT 0TnXoatFOCc8SOr0+CzSODOiLtOUFi5l95YjJQZwBNDIwIkVIs0PL+QRmJ4AiulU4e7e oFviVzUqoB05AC+prNi/OVXVAX0/VvhKo2mMGoYVI/NRFzsfUXPIGvLZ3DQErvpGEz6W P3gKwBkpCZ+rJnv7ve8jULhfx/at59c057YUse/I7DLpcQD9+PpkyE58FWw1uMGGfxaD PN2w==
X-Received: by 10.180.91.107 with SMTP id cd11mr21059093wib.51.1430150848937; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE (bzq-109-65-21-99.red.bezeqint.net. [109.65.21.99]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bi3sm12248390wib.5.2015.04.27.09.07.26 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: <draft-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload.all@tools.ietf.org>, <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:07:23 +0300
Message-ID: <040301d08104$414ecd00$c3ec6700$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0404_01D0811D.669D1670"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdCBBD9MmCkyg/82Shmpi/3Dv+vroQ==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/fEsl1cJne_qgdoRCh9TkV-fwctk>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload-08
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:07:50 -0000

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-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

1.	Client - is this different from RFC6940, if not why repeat?
2.	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
3.	Proxy and Proxy node - Why do you need both terms. In section 7 it
uses proxy(PN) like it is the same term.
4.	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.