Spencer actually responded to me directly (he's no longer on the list directly) - I will forward the response and continue to try to reach Phillip.
I'm fine with moving to LC while I try to reach Phillip. Thank you very much, On Feb 18, 2016 4:50 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <[email protected]> wrote: > David, > > The changes look good to me, thanks. I can request IETF LC while we wait > for Spencer and Philip to respond about pre-5378, if you’d like, or I can > wait. Let me know your preference. > > Alissa > > On Feb 11, 2016, at 8:47 AM, 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]> 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] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >> > > >
_______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
