Agreed on all counts. > On Feb 11, 2016, at 10:47, David Bryan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > A new version of the draft has been submitted. Alissa, thanks for your close > review, I have addressed the issues you mention (see below), and don't > believe there are actually any current open issues, except possibly changing > this away from the language around pre-5378 contributions. I am fine with > moving it to the newer disclaimer (conforms to 5378), and will attempt to ask > each author to comment on this thread that they also are fine with it using > the new trust language. Other specifics inline: > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Alissa Cooper <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF last call. There are a > few edits that need to be made before this document can be last-called: > > 1) The document needs a security considerations section. It is perfectly fine > if this section mostly points to the security considerations of the other > p2psip documents, but it needs to be there. > > Added, along with an IANA considerations (there are no considerations) > > 2) Section 3.5 and Section 7 have text marked as “OPEN ISSUE.” These need to > be resolved. > > After review, I believe these have all been resolved. They have been removed. > > 3) Section 1 should be deleted. > > Section 1 (editors comments) has been deleted. > > While you’re making changes, please address the following: > > 4) Fix the ID nits. > > The only nits now are the pre-5378 contributions and the fact that it somehow > believes one of the figures contains code comments (it doesn't). There are no > other outstanding nits. > > 5) I think Section 3.5 should reference RFC 6762 and 6763 rather than > Bonjour. > > 6) The Wikipedia references in Section 5 and 6 don’t really seem appropriate > and don’t add much value, so I would suggest deleting them. > > Agreed and corrected. > > 7) References to “the RELOAD base draft” should not call it a draft and > should reference the RFC. > > Fixed. In addition, RFCs 7363 and 7374 have issued since the last revision. I > have corrected them as well. -sip and -diagnostics are still drafts, and are > still referenced (current version) as such. > > Again, thank you for the review and sorry for the delay in iteration. > > > Thanks, > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip> > > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
_______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
