Re: [P2PSIP] Review of DRR and RPR documents

Dear Ning,

OK, thanks for the updates. Let me take a look and post my revision.

Carlos

On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 01:30 +0000, Zongning wrote:
> Hi, Carlos and all.
> 
> We have submitted new revision of DRR draft and RPR draft. The main change is that we did some wording in RPR draft to avoid referring to DRR as normative reference.
> As said, we still have some duplication in the two drafts because we want to keep them independent to each other.
> Further comments and suggestions are welcome.
> Thanks.
> 
> -Ning
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: p2psip-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:p2psip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:44 AM
> > To: Roni Even
> > Cc: draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-p2psip-drr@tools.ietf.org;
> > p2psip@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Review of DRR and RPR documents
> > 
> > Hi Roni,
> > 
> > Thanks for the prompt reaction.
> > 
> > If the split/merging discussion has already taken place, I don't want to
> > bring it again, but I just found a bit artificial the separation in two
> > documents (and now I see why). I see the point of implementation
> > compliance with one RFC and not the other, but current text in RPR
> > refers to protocol extensions defined in DRR, so we are not there
> > either.
> > 
> > As I see it (personal opinion) if we want to keep two separate
> > documents, we still need some additional work on the wording of them,
> > and we might end up duplicating some content. The merging approach would
> > make the text cleaner, but would have the problem you pointed out.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Carlos
> > 
> > On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 15:09 +0200, Roni Even wrote:
> > > Hi Carlos,
> > > Thanks for the review, we will look at the comments as for merging the
> > documents. Originally it was one document and it was a WG decision to split it
> > to allow implementation to be compliant with an RFC if they want only to
> > support DRR or RPR
> > > Roni Even
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: p2psip-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:p2psip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> > Of Carlos Jes?s Bernardos Cano
> > > Sent: 22 January, 2013 1:51 PM
> > > To: p2psip@ietf.org
> > > Cc: draft-ietf-p2psip-drr@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr@tools.ietf.org
> > > Subject: [P2PSIP] Review of DRR and RPR documents
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As agreed during the last meeting, I've performed a review of
> > draft-ietf-p2psip-drr and draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr documents, prior to shipping
> > them to the IESG for publication. My reviews are attached to this e-mail (I
> > added comments to the PDF version of each draft, hope this is fine).
> > >
> > > I'd like authors to go through the comments before sending the documents to
> > the IESG. There might be some issues that need to be brought to the WG for
> > discussion.
> > >
> > > I'd also like to ask the WG for opinion on one particular aspect. I'm wondering
> > if it would be better to merge both documents into a single one. Currently, both
> > documents make quite a lot of cross-references, but still there is duplicate text
> > in both of them, so I'd be more in favor of merging (personal opinion). Please,
> > comment on this on the mailing list.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > P2PSIP mailing list
> > P2PSIP@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip