On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Joel Dietz <[email protected]> wrote: > Promised Soren this a couple months ago... ::blushes::
No need to blush, your feedback is always appreciated. > > <<Google Wave is a... platform>> > > <<and to "federate" waves, that is, to share waves with each other and with > Google Wave>> > > <<In this model, Google Wave is one of many wave providers.>> > > 'Google Wave' is used inconsistently in the docs. In the above examples it > means both: > > The wave provider which is Google. > The platform. You're right that this was ambiguous. I changed the former use to wave.google.com throughout. > <<"In particular, attachments and groups are important elements of wave > federation that are not covered herein. They will be treated in follow-up > material on this site before long..>> > > You've got attachments now. I'd very much like to know what the plan is for > groups, insofar as there is one, or what the status is for coming up with a > plan. I removed the last sentence. Jon Tirsen mentions a few things about groups in the Access Control white paper: https://sites.google.com/a/waveprotocol.org/wave-protocol/whitepapers/access-control There's more to say about this and we will share more as we go and, as always, welcome input. > <<In the remainder we ignore addressees that are services, including robots > and gateways - they are treated largely the same as users with respect to > federation.>> > > Probably want a semicolon here instead of an em dash (or normal dash). Done. > <<The wave service uses a federation gateway and a federation proxy > component to communicate with with other wave providers.>> > > one 'with' will do. Done. > << • It processes wavelet operations submission requests. > • > The fedeeration...>> > > estra bullet Removed. > <<retrying with an exponential backoff>> > > Maybe "with exponential backoff" or "by means of an exponential backoff > algorithm" Done. > <<t. The host federation gateway responds by sending the new AddParticipant > operation forwarding all ensuing new operations to the federation proxy, but > the latter must itself turn around and request the prior operations>> > > Is there a way to just get the most recent version? No. It's the responsibility of the sender to deliver any updates (much like email). This solution makes access control stronger and simpler but it's possible that it's too rigid in practice. It may be appropriate to revisit this in the future. > <<has a participant which is a user @acmewave.com>> > > "at acmewave.com" Done. > <<it only provides cryptographic security between servers the connect>> > > "that connect" Done. > <<This makes it impossible for evil.com to alter or spoof the contents of > the messages>> > > "content" Done. > <<Danny Berlin:>> > > Elsewhere, "Daniel" Done. > <<offer a reasonable level of security between end clients.>> > > end clients? > > <<it is recommended that it offers its end users secure encrypted > connections to its wave service frontend.>> > > "offer" I assume frontend is the same as "client" elsewhere, so that might > also be changed. I simplified this sentence. It should be easier to parse now. > <<In combination, secure connections between wave services and secure > connections between users and their wave services offer a reasonable level > of security between end clients.>> > > "between end clients" is awkward. Maybe "offer a reasonable level of > security overall." Thank you for the suggestion. I changed this to "offer a reasonable level of end-to-end security" > > Hope all's well in Sydney & MTV. It is! We're keeping ourselves busy. Thank you very much for your feedback. Regards, Soren and Dan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
