Re: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-07

David,

The changes look good to me, thanks. I can request IETF LC while we wait for Spencer and Philip to respond about pre-5378, if you’d like, or I can wait. Let me know your preference.

Alissa

> On Feb 11, 2016, at 8:47 AM, David Bryan <dbryan@ethernot.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> A new version of the draft has been submitted. Alissa, thanks for your close review, I have addressed the issues you mention (see below), and don't believe there are actually any current open issues, except possibly changing this away from the language around pre-5378 contributions. I am fine with moving it to the newer disclaimer (conforms to 5378), and will attempt to ask each author to comment on this thread that they also are fine with it using the new trust language. Other specifics inline:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> wrote:
> I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF last call. There are a few edits that need to be made before this document can be last-called:
> 
> 1) The document needs a security considerations section. It is perfectly fine if this section mostly points to the security considerations of the other p2psip documents, but it needs to be there.
> 
> Added, along with an IANA considerations (there are no considerations)
>  
> 2) Section 3.5 and Section 7 have text marked as “OPEN ISSUE.” These need to be resolved.
> 
> After review, I believe these have all been resolved. They have been removed.
> 
> 3) Section 1 should be deleted.
> 
> Section 1 (editors comments) has been deleted.
>  
> While you’re making changes, please address the following:
> 
> 4) Fix the ID nits.
> 
> The only nits now are the pre-5378 contributions and the fact that it somehow believes one of the figures contains code comments (it doesn't). There are no other outstanding nits.
>  
> 5) I think Section 3.5 should reference RFC 6762 and 6763 rather than Bonjour. 
> 
> 6) The Wikipedia references in Section 5 and 6 don’t really seem appropriate and don’t add much value, so I would suggest deleting them.
> 
> Agreed and corrected.
>  
> 7) References to “the RELOAD base draft” should not call it a draft and should reference the RFC.
> 
> Fixed. In addition, RFCs 7363 and 7374 have issued since the last revision. I have corrected them as well. -sip and -diagnostics are still drafts, and are still referenced (current version) as such.
> 
> Again, thank you for the review and sorry for the delay in iteration.
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> P2PSIP@ietf.org <mailto:P2PSIP@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>
> 