Re: [ppsp] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 16 Dec 2015, at 2:43, Huangyihong (Rachel) wrote:

> Hi Ben,
>
> Apologize for the careless when editing the draft. I'll go through 
> this draft one more time to make sure it won't happen again.

Hi Rachel,

I didn't mean to imply carelessness on anyone's part. Once someone has 
edited a draft over-and-over, it becomes really hard to catch this sort 
of thing. It happens to me all the time--I think I've gotten some text 
perfect, and other people find all kinds of errors.

Thanks!

Ben.

>
> BR,
> Rachel
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 3:52 AM
>> To: Huangyihong (Rachel)
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG;
>> [e-mail]; Zongning
>> Subject: Re: Ben Campbell's Discuss on
>> draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Looking at the updated document, I have some minor comments on the
>> changes. Otherwise, I think at least my substantive comments have all 
>> been
>> addressed.
>>
>> - I notice multiple occurrences of "edit-itis" in the changed text.
>> (That is, grammar errors introduced by incomplete edits.). I suggest 
>> one more
>> proofreading pass after you have made all your planned edits. I 
>> mention a few
>> instances below, but I think there are more.
>>
>> - Definitions of seeder and leech: The 2119 keywords probably do not 
>> belong in
>> the term definition. I _think_ (but did not verify) that this is 
>> specified elsewhere
>> in the document. It's okay to mention the requirement in the term 
>> definition,
>> just not "normatively"
>>
>> - 1.2.2, 1st paragraph last sentence:
>> The new sentence about peer ID formats is internally redundant. I 
>> suspect
>> someone started to edit it but didn't finish.
>>
>> - 6.2:
>>
>> s/declaim/claim
>>
>> I cannot parse the sentence starting with "For Trackers...". Does 
>> this mean
>> something like:
>> "Trackers do not see the content exchanged among peers, so they 
>> cannot
>> detect peer pollution of content."
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Ben.
>>
>> On 15 Dec 2015, at 5:49, Huangyihong (Rachel) wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ben,
>>>
>>> We have submitted a new version. Would you please take a look to see
>>> if the comments are solved or not?
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> BR,
>>> Rachel
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 7:06 AM
>>>> To: Huangyihong (Rachel)
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG;
>>>> [e-mail]; Zongning
>>>> Subject: Re: Ben Campbell's Discuss on
>>>> draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-10: (with DISCUSS and 
>>>> COMMENT)
>>>>
>>>> Hi Rachel,
>>>>
>>>> I just realized I hadn't closed the loop on this one. Your email
>>>> addressed all my remaining comments.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Ben.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 19 Nov 2015, at 1:53, Huangyihong (Rachel) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ben,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please see further late replies inline^^. Thank you for your
>>>>> comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> BR,
>>>>> Rachel