Here are my non-technical comments. My comments from March have been
mainly addressed in the current document - the editors have definitely
made a great attempt to improve the structure and readability of the
document.
A few additional ones are below.
Thanks,
Alan
- - - - -
Break into Multiple Documents - I still believe that it would be a
mistake to keep this all in one huge document. It would be trivial to
split the DHT stuff from the distributed database from the SIP usage
part - each stands almost alone. I've edited incredibly large
documents, and it is not fun, and can cause serialization delays unless
you have a coordinated team of editors, such as we had when working on 3261.
Presentation Language - personally, I don't like it, but then again I'm
not a coder. I think it isn't very readable for humans, although this
may outweigh the benefits listed. If I'm the only one who feels this
way, then feel free to ignore.
Section 6.2.2, page 43, Version of 0.1 - why is this chosen instead of
1.0, or is the draft going to say 0.1 while the RFC 1.0?
Section 7.2.3, page 72, when introducing the Dictionary data model, it
might be good to give the example you give later of multiple
registrations against an AOR. It is far from obvious what this is used
for. I'm still thinking about whether this a good usage or not. Are
there other usages imagined?
Nits:
Section 3.3.1.5 page 25, missing "." at end of the page.
There are a few places where "CONNECT" is listed instead of "Attach",
unless I am mistaken.
Section 6.1.2.2 page 37, last paragraph should be "Intermediate peers
which..."
Section 6.1.2.3 page 38, should read "... MUST replace ..."
Section 14, Message Flow Examples. These figures should have figure
numbers. Also, I think I can guess what PP, PPP, and NP are, but it
would be useful to spell them out. Also, aren't there additional
messages (such as Pings) which aren't shown?
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
