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

Hi Alissa,

so status is o.k..

Maybe, if we get the open Ack from Roland, we can move p2psip-share and 
p2psip-sip jointly forward, which would be good for keeping the 
references intact.

Best,
  Thomas

On 12.06.2015 22:46, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Checking in on the status of this.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
> On May 11, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Thomas C. Schmidt <t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de> wrote:
>
>> 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 °

-- 

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 °