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

David Bryan <> Thu, 11 February 2016 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CCD1B3463 for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 08:47:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dwv-wpb6H3pD for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 08:47:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A940C1B2C3F for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 08:47:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id is5so81586814obc.0 for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 08:47:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Y+W8RU4HdEzfkU4KIuDU+aOd65wCCVqtGvthXHLJLdY=; b=RNL7U5Sx5AM6xI7FNt0C3ecvMt8IcA39Yc+icX73CaWSr7P18yx94hjql/uHa5iqgy aYB+uXVowpR/nlPje7atP3ncn15c3xvyMP4kttE8cITwGZ+IJT6CK0Tvb0Pgu3p9m6+s WrVkhIC8uOcjkb9u6AaITHOkIr3kqIeu9yUvfimp43Bo9mbUprxxHEZjdC7+oTQn4de2 r7lZhO2ZsoYn5/VTLv1fFTRbrI8czoKOoh+BzgUR4Fd+n0aRPdSvEzjrHkoKZMe3VTl4 mNh76hQVyiOqWPyeSJr9WU6YCU6ik/WXAPkPr4PFRmz4oRwR9w216eO4aRNtMdGTwVz0 Ou7A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Y+W8RU4HdEzfkU4KIuDU+aOd65wCCVqtGvthXHLJLdY=; b=bknS1Rn45CZwDrGfoHCqa+DNrmvJNmj63suAWMeg6NAoRiwom30VORXZ1sdZUAzEny kH3d4TFjFG+RdGOWp6T50dSOyS8i2FqRw59sNfqZkzB9T+e2hLODg3zH61Gd/vH9XPjA 7WO6FnAkjHrVD4bloUDiZAHiRjkaJCbe3hCBUdCixsbRDVuoBzJrwrW2OQj3SLhXjQ33 SXOUSOyUBcejg5OmpeHzkfiBvTrzWQvFO7/21D68zUlHrbK0R4EB/s4pWd5xxs83MSA6 Gw/pw1ZopGoMBM2Ax8kER8cRiRCapattSD35yh57+5WXErh9J4rJ88TR0RVb/YF8y8lR TGfg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOS3eLBo96SBG6KNhtT2bPCl3oGyJxpr05+6RLZRKFBSKZfllRwQS5M29HmDlSIJ8JbuUp5v4L2A2fj6IA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id p6mr48078239oex.75.1455209267910; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 08:47:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 08:47:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:47:47 -0600
Message-ID: <>
From: David Bryan <>
To: Alissa Cooper <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011828a07cf6a0052b814fe6
Archived-At: <>
Cc: p2psip <>
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:47:50 -0000

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 <> 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

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