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

Spencer actually responded to me directly (he's no longer on the list
directly) - I will forward the response and continue to try to reach
Phillip.

I'm fine with moving to LC while I try to reach Phillip.

Thank you very much,
On Feb 18, 2016 4:50 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

> 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> 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
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>>
>
>
>