Hi, this was a gen-art review. So, I am cc:ing [email protected]
Cheers, Gonzalo On 26/11/2013 9:54 AM, Zongning wrote: > Hi, Francis, > > Just want to confirm if you are happy with this new revision, which we > believe addressed your comments on editorial issues. > > Thanks. > > -Ning > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Zongning >> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 3:47 PM >> To: '[email protected]' >> Cc: 'Roni Even'; 'yunfei zhang'; jiangxingfeng 00215458 >> Subject: RE: review of draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-10.txt (resent) >> >> Hi, Francis, >> >> Could you please review the updated version to confirm if your >> comments/suggestions have been appropriately resolved? >> >> URL: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-11.txt >> Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-drr >> Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-11 >> Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-11 >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Ning >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 7:15 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: review of draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-10.txt (resent) >>> >>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >>> >>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>> >>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >>> you may receive. >>> >>> Document: draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-10.txt >>> Reviewer: Francis Dupont >>> Review Date: 20130927 >>> IETF LC End Date: 20130930 >>> IESG Telechat date: unknown >>> >>> Summary: Almost Ready >>> >>> Major issues: None >>> >>> Minor issues: the title and the abstract must get an explicit expansion >>> of the RELOAD acronym, e.g., the title shoud be: >>> An extension to REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) protocol >>> to support Direct Response Routing >>> >>> Nits/editorial comments: >>> - proposed changes to the title and to the abstract (both page 1) >>> >>> - ToC page 2 and 10 page 13: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments >>> >>> - IMHO Authors' Addresses should be in the body so before the Appendix >>> >>> - 2 page 3 in Publicly Reachable: closed system -> closed network >>> >>> - 3.1.2 page 6 (in fact more for the RFC Editor): Figure 2 label >>> should be in the same page than the figure itself (or with other >>> words please avoid silly page breaks). >>> >>> - 3.2.1 page 6: the responding peer receives a response... >>> if I am not fully lost it should be a request, not a response? >>> >>> - 5.1 page 8 (4 times): e.g. -> e.g., >>> >>> - 5.2 page 9: I trust you (and the WG) for the delays... >>> >>> - 8 page 13: drat -> draft (and IMHO document is far more appropriate >>> as it will be published as an RFC before this draft :-). >>> >>> - 11.2 page 14: add a reference to RFC 6887 (and see below). >>> >>> - A.1 page 16: endpoint- independent -> endpoint-independent >>> >>> - A.1 page 16: even it doesn't provide a direct way of getting >>> the external assigned address (but read 11.6) PCP [RFC 6887] >>> must be added to UPnP-IGD and NAT-PMP. If you need some words, >>> one can consider PCP as a far more complete version of NAT-PMP. >>> BTW the "test address" comment applies too to PCP. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> PS: my checker complains about standalone (-> stand-alone), inline >>> (?, please ignore), publically (-> publicly?, this should be addressed, >>> even by the RFC Editor, as it occurs many times), etc. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
