[P2PSIP] Review of draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery-08

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Mon, 29 July 2013 13:59 UTC

Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB6B311E8106 for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fWjTzekUR20e for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:59:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E1621F9A3D for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 992249D4243; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 15:57:55 +0200 (CEST)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from [130.129.85.5] (dhcp-5505.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.85.5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: cjbc@smtp03.uc3m.es) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 127C411BF16E; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 15:57:54 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <1375106272.4631.23.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: p2psip@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 15:57:52 +0200
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.0.0.1014-20044.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--13.777-7.0-31-1
X-imss-scan-details: No--13.777-7.0-31-1
Cc: draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [P2PSIP] Review of draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery-08
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2psip>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:59:51 -0000

Hi,

I've performed a Document Shepherd review of
draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery-08.

I think the document is in very good shape and I'll be requesting the
publication of the document later this week. I have some very minor
comments that maybe can be addressed by the authors in the next revision
of the document, together with any other comments you might get during
the next steps in the publication process:

- Page 4. Section 2 (Terminology). There is a reference to
draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts. We'll discuss in this meeting (and follow up
on the ML later) what to do with this document. Depending on the
decision, you might need to modify/remove this part and add some other
changes.

- Page 4. Section 2 (Terminology). I think adding some text introducing
the listed terms would not harm.

- Sections 10.2 and 10.3. I guess RFC-AAAA refers to the number assigned
to the document when finally published, right? If so, adding a note to
the RFC-Editor would not harm. Please, also fix table in Section 10.3
(now it expands over two different pages).

- Page 3: "it scales linearly in the number of nodes" --> I think it
should be "it scales linearly in the number of nodes".

Thanks,

Carlos