Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload-08
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 13 May 2015 22:30 UTC
Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 66C151B2C5A for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2015 15:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 dlDdibtQVF73 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2015 15:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8A61AD2F6 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 May 2015 15:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 257742CC9C; Thu, 14 May 2015 01:30:56 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WF2or6kCWMW6; Thu, 14 May 2015 01:30:55 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F9C02CC5A; Thu, 14 May 2015 01:30:27 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F5ACED3B-06DD-4D37-8BF7-EB0FDAB58808"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <8C5FCC12-AD87-40CB-BE40-E6DF47DF926A@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 00:30:15 +0200
Message-Id: <7B5B77FB-4814-459E-A5DE-7CB91007652B@piuha.net>
References: <040301d08104$414ecd00$c3ec6700$@gmail.com> <8C5FCC12-AD87-40CB-BE40-E6DF47DF926A@ericsson.com>
To: Jaime Jiménez <jaime.jimenez@ericsson.com>, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/tw537LdZejLq3tLqnsQ-3_bUZNs>
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 13 May 2015 22:30:58 -0000
Thanks Jaime and Roni. Jari On 05 May 2015, at 12:32, Jaime Jiménez <jaime.jimenez@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi, > > thanks for the comments, replies are inline. I will add those changes to the draft once the last call process is over. > > Ciao, > - - Jaime Jimenez > >> On 27 Apr 2015, at 19:07, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> • 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." > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art