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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas,

What is the status of this update?

Thanks,
Alissa

On Apr 23, 2015, at 3:09 AM, Thomas C. Schmidt <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>>    Yes, that’s fine, thanks.
>>    Alissa
>> 
>>    On Apr 21, 2015, at 1:40 AM, Emmanuel Baccelli
>>    <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>>    >[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>    >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: [phone] °
> ° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt    Fax: [phone] °
> 
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip