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

["Thomas C. Schmidt" <[e-mail]>]

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] °