Re: [P2PSIP] WGLC for draft-ietf-p2psip-share-04

"Thomas C. Schmidt" <t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de> Mon, 11 May 2015 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de>
X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E58E1ACE51 for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2015 11:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, 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 TY1r9s7CsO4P for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2015 11:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx6.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de (mx6.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de [141.22.6.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEAF01ACE8B for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2015 11:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,409,1427752800"; d="scan'208";a="26802569"
Received: from post.haw-hamburg.de (HELO HUB02.mailcluster.haw-hamburg.de) ([141.22.24.51]) by mail6.is.haw-hamburg.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 11 May 2015 20:09:18 +0200
Received: from CAS01.mailcluster.haw-hamburg.de (2002:8d16:183c::8d16:183c) by HUB02.mailcluster.haw-hamburg.de (2002:8d16:1833::8d16:1833) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Mon, 11 May 2015 20:09:17 +0200
Received: from [192.168.178.101] (141.22.200.50) by haw-mailer.haw-hamburg.de (141.22.24.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Mon, 11 May 2015 20:09:17 +0200
Message-ID: <5550F04B.6030401@haw-hamburg.de>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 20:09:15 +0200
From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
References: <CANK0pbaZden4A=wOgJ7VevjqaLjMnG=TqOAN7rToGc=ekp+HoQ@mail.gmail.com> <B5B18BCE-DAB7-4C45-975A-5ECB3B6250B6@cooperw.in> <0dbe3c40f2784076b961e730dd1f17d4@HUB01.mailcluster.haw-hamburg.de> <5538C4D6.1030007@haw-hamburg.de> <454a62af9d0f466c9351c64ac36f1b7e@HUB01.mailcluster.haw-hamburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <454a62af9d0f466c9351c64ac36f1b7e@HUB01.mailcluster.haw-hamburg.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/FDRcgRR-VetRV2hnpcpQYhbVeBY>
Cc: p2psip <p2psip@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] WGLC for draft-ietf-p2psip-share-04
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2psip/>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 18:09:22 -0000

Hi Alissa,

it's coming ASAP. I was blocked by paper deadlines ...

Thanks,

  Thomas

On 11.05.2015 19:36, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> What is the status of this update?
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
> On Apr 23, 2015, at 3:09 AM, Thomas C. Schmidt <t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi Emmanuel,
>>
>> many thanks!
>>
>> We'll fix the issues and resubmit during the next few days.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> thomas
>>
>> On 23.04.2015 12:03, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
>>> Hi Alissa, Hi WG,
>>>
>>> I have reviewed draft-ietf-p2psip-share-05, and here are my comments.
>>>
>>>
>>> General comments:
>>> in my opinion the draft is in good shape and reads well. I have a few
>>> nits and editorial suggestions detailed below. I believe these can be
>>> addressed quite easily with a quick resubmission and my impression is
>>> the doc is ready to go.
>>>
>>>
>>> Detailed comments:
>>>
>>> in Section 1: refer to RFC6940 (and which section, if applicable) the
>>> first time specific terms are used such as "RELOAD Usage" or "RELOAD
>>> security model". Spoiler: I will have a lot of such comments below ;)
>>>
>>> in Section 2: for reader convenience, I suggest listing the key terms
>>> (without recalling their definitions) imported from RFC6940, and the
>>> p2psip-concepts draft in the paragraph right after the 2119 boilerplate.
>>>
>>> in Section 3.1: in step 3, I suggest being explicit that the 8bit part
>>> is a suffix (least significant bits)
>>>
>>> in Section 4.1:
>>> - "...Alice is also granted (limited) write access..."
>>> Either explain what "limited" means here, or remove this adjective.
>>>
>>> - "Note that overwriting existing items in an Access Control List that
>>> reference a    different Kind-ID..."
>>> Clarify: different from what? I suppose you mean that the overwrite
>>> results in changing the Kind-ID
>>>
>>> - "The Resource Owner is allowed to overwrite any existing ACL item, but
>>> should be aware of its consequences."
>>> Either quickly explain / give examples of consequences or remove this
>>> sentence.
>>>
>>> in Section 5.1:  "The specifications in this document scheme adhere to
>>> this paradigm...".
>>> add reference to RFC6940 (and the exact section). It will help readers
>>> grasp quicker what draft-ietf-p2psip-share specification adds here.
>>>
>>> in Section 6.1:
>>> - first sentence "Write access ... solely be issued by the Resource Owner."
>>> rephrase needed (confusing as readers already know that delegation is
>>> possible).
>>>
>>> - "... stored in the numerical order... starting with the index of the
>>> root item...".
>>> I have a (stupid) question: What if the Node-ID of the an authorized
>>> peer with ad=1 has a node-ID that is numerically smaller that that of
>>> the owner?
>>> I suggest rephrasing in order to clarify this corner case, just to make
>>> sure no one is confused?
>>>
>>> in Section 6.5: Step 1. reference "as per RFC 6940 Section X.Y."
>>>
>>> in Section 6.6: Because it is possible here, I would have preferred to
>>> see the last 2 paragraphs written in steps + pseudo-code style
>>> if...else..else. But that's a matter of taste.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Emmanuel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in
>>> <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Yes, that’s fine, thanks.
>>>     Alissa
>>>
>>>     On Apr 21, 2015, at 1:40 AM, Emmanuel Baccelli
>>>     <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr <mailto:Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     >
>>>     > Hi Alissa,
>>>     >
>>>     > if it is not too late: I am currently reviewing the document. ETA early next week.
>>>     > Sorry for the delay. Is that alright with you?
>>>     >
>>>     > Best,
>>>     >
>>>     > Emmanuel
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     > _______________________________________________
>>>     > P2PSIP mailing list
>>>     >P2PSIP@ietf.org <mailto:P2PSIP@ietf.org>
>>>     >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
>> ° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                   Berliner Tor 7 °
>> ° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099 Hamburg, Germany °
>> ° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet                   Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
>> ° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt    Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> P2PSIP mailing list
>> P2PSIP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

-- 

Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                   Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet                   Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt    Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °