Hi Thomas, Thanks. I think the new/updated text fixes the comments I had.
Best, Emmanuel Le 17 juin 2015 13:16, "Thomas C. Schmidt" <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hi Emmanuel, all, > > On 23.04.2015 11:03, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote: > > 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. >> >> > thanks - please find our records below. > > >> 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 ;) >> >> > Done: We prepended the statement fixing the relation to RFC6940: > > "[RFC6940] defines the base protocol for REsource LOcation And > Discovery (RELOAD) that allows for application-specific extensions by > Usages." > > 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. >> > > Done: We named the most prominent terms: > > " This document uses the terminology and definitions from the RELOAD > base [RFC6940] and the peer-to-peer SIP concepts draft > [I-D.ietf-p2psip-concepts], in particular the RELOAD Usage, Resource > and Kind." > > >> in Section 3.1: in step 3, I suggest being explicit that the 8bit part >> is a suffix (least significant bits) >> >> > Oh, thanks for that one. We clarified: > > " 3. Append an 8 bit long short individual index value to those 24 bit > of the Node-ID" > > in Section 4.1: >> - "...Alice is also granted (limited) write access..." >> Either explain what "limited" means here, or remove this adjective. >> >> > Good point, thanks: The right is actually explained in the following > sentence, so we removed "(limited)": > > " peer Alice is also granted write access to the ACL as indicated by > the allow_delegation flag (ad) set to 1. This configuration > authorizes Alice to store further trust delegations to the Shared > Resource, i.e., add items to the ACL." > > - "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 >> > > Yes, we clarified: > > "Note that > overwriting existing items in an Access Control List with a change in > the Kind-ID revokes all trust delegations in the corresponding > subtree (see Section 6.2)." > > >> - "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. >> > > O.K., we clarified: > > "The Resource Owner is allowed > to overwrite any existing ACL item, but should be aware of its > consequences on the trust delegation chain." > > >> 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. >> >> > Done: > > " Each RELOAD node uses a certificate to identify itself using its user > name (or Node-ID) while storing data under a specific Resource-ID > (see Section 7.3 in [RFC6940]). The specifications in this document > scheme adhere to this paradigm, but.." > > 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). >> >> > O.k., we clarified: > > " Write access to a Kind that is intended to be shared with other > RELOAD users can solely be *initiated* by the Resource Owner." > > - "... 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? >> > > That does not matter. Each node has a unique prefix (up to unlikely > collisions) and writes in its own index space to avoid race conditions (see > Sect. 3.1). Here we only describe the node-specific indexing. > > I suggest rephrasing in order to clarify this corner case, just to make >> sure no one is confused? >> >> > We clarified: > > "For each succeeding ACL item, the Resource Owner > increments its individual index value by one (see Section 3.1) so > that items can be stored in the numerical order of the array index > starting with the index of the root item." > > > 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. >> >> > I guess ... ;) > > > So, we've updated and submit in a second. > > Thanks again, > > Thomas > > > >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Alissa Cooper <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Yes, that’s fine, thanks. >> Alissa >> >> On Apr 21, 2015, at 1:40 AM, Emmanuel Baccelli >> <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >> >> >> > -- > > Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt > ° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner Tor 7 ° > ° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, Germany ° > ° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 > ° > ° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 > ° >
_______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
