Hi Alissa, Hi WG, I have reviewed draft-ietf-p2psip-share-05, and here are my comments.
General comments: in my opinion the draft is in good shape and reads well. I have a few nits and editorial suggestions detailed below. I believe these can be addressed quite easily with a quick resubmission and my impression is the doc is ready to go. Detailed comments: in Section 1: refer to RFC6940 (and which section, if applicable) the first time specific terms are used such as "RELOAD Usage" or "RELOAD security model". Spoiler: I will have a lot of such comments below ;) in Section 2: for reader convenience, I suggest listing the key terms (without recalling their definitions) imported from RFC6940, and the p2psip-concepts draft in the paragraph right after the 2119 boilerplate. in Section 3.1: in step 3, I suggest being explicit that the 8bit part is a suffix (least significant bits) in Section 4.1: - "...Alice is also granted (limited) write access..." Either explain what "limited" means here, or remove this adjective. - "Note that overwriting existing items in an Access Control List that reference a different Kind-ID..." Clarify: different from what? I suppose you mean that the overwrite results in changing the Kind-ID - "The Resource Owner is allowed to overwrite any existing ACL item, but should be aware of its consequences." Either quickly explain / give examples of consequences or remove this sentence. in Section 5.1: "The specifications in this document scheme adhere to this paradigm...". add reference to RFC6940 (and the exact section). It will help readers grasp quicker what draft-ietf-p2psip-share specification adds here. in Section 6.1: - first sentence "Write access ... solely be issued by the Resource Owner." rephrase needed (confusing as readers already know that delegation is possible). - "... stored in the numerical order... starting with the index of the root item...". I have a (stupid) question: What if the Node-ID of the an authorized peer with ad=1 has a node-ID that is numerically smaller that that of the owner? I suggest rephrasing in order to clarify this corner case, just to make sure no one is confused? in Section 6.5: Step 1. reference "as per RFC 6940 Section X.Y." in Section 6.6: Because it is possible here, I would have preferred to see the last 2 paragraphs written in steps + pseudo-code style if...else..else. But that's a matter of taste. Best, Emmanuel On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Alissa Cooper <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, that’s fine, thanks. > Alissa > > On Apr 21, 2015, at 1:40 AM, Emmanuel Baccelli <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Alissa, > > > > if it is not too late: I am currently reviewing the document. ETA early > next week. > > Sorry for the delay. Is that alright with you? > > > > Best, > > > > Emmanuel > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > P2PSIP mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > >
_______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
