Dear Ning, OK, thanks for the updates. Let me take a look and post my revision.
Carlos On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 01:30 +0000, Zongning wrote: > Hi, Carlos and all. > > We have submitted new revision of DRR draft and RPR draft. The main change is > that we did some wording in RPR draft to avoid referring to DRR as normative > reference. > As said, we still have some duplication in the two drafts because we want to > keep them independent to each other. > Further comments and suggestions are welcome. > Thanks. > > -Ning > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano > > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:44 AM > > To: Roni Even > > Cc: [email protected]; > > [email protected]; > > [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Review of DRR and RPR documents > > > > Hi Roni, > > > > Thanks for the prompt reaction. > > > > If the split/merging discussion has already taken place, I don't want to > > bring it again, but I just found a bit artificial the separation in two > > documents (and now I see why). I see the point of implementation > > compliance with one RFC and not the other, but current text in RPR > > refers to protocol extensions defined in DRR, so we are not there > > either. > > > > As I see it (personal opinion) if we want to keep two separate > > documents, we still need some additional work on the wording of them, > > and we might end up duplicating some content. The merging approach would > > make the text cleaner, but would have the problem you pointed out. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Carlos > > > > On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 15:09 +0200, Roni Even wrote: > > > Hi Carlos, > > > Thanks for the review, we will look at the comments as for merging the > > documents. Originally it was one document and it was a WG decision to split > > it > > to allow implementation to be compliant with an RFC if they want only to > > support DRR or RPR > > > Roni Even > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > > Of Carlos Jes?s Bernardos Cano > > > Sent: 22 January, 2013 1:51 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Cc: [email protected]; > > > [email protected] > > > Subject: [P2PSIP] Review of DRR and RPR documents > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > As agreed during the last meeting, I've performed a review of > > draft-ietf-p2psip-drr and draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr documents, prior to shipping > > them to the IESG for publication. My reviews are attached to this e-mail (I > > added comments to the PDF version of each draft, hope this is fine). > > > > > > I'd like authors to go through the comments before sending the documents > > > to > > the IESG. There might be some issues that need to be brought to the WG for > > discussion. > > > > > > I'd also like to ask the WG for opinion on one particular aspect. I'm > > > wondering > > if it would be better to merge both documents into a single one. Currently, > > both > > documents make quite a lot of cross-references, but still there is > > duplicate text > > in both of them, so I'd be more in favor of merging (personal opinion). > > Please, > > comment on this on the mailing list. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Carlos > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > P2PSIP mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
