Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-10

Request Review of draft-ietf-p2psip-drr
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-09-30
Requested 2013-09-19
Authors Ning Zong , XingFeng Jiang , Roni Even , Yunfei Zhang
I-D last updated 2013-09-30
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -10 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Francis Dupont
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Brian Weis (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -11 by Brian Weis
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-p2psip-drr by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 11)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2013-09-30
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-10.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20130927
IETF LC End Date: 20130930
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Almost Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: the title and the abstract must get an explicit expansion
of the RELOAD acronym, e.g., the title shoud be:
   An extension to REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) protocol
   to support Direct Response Routing

Nits/editorial comments:
 - proposed changes to the title and to the abstract (both page 1)

 - ToC page 2 and 10 page 13: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - IMHO Authors' Addresses should be in the body so before the Appendix

 - 2 page 3 in Publicly Reachable: closed system -> closed network

 - 3.1.2 page 6 (in fact more for the RFC Editor): Figure 2 label
  should be in the same page than the figure itself (or with other
  words please avoid silly page breaks).

 - 3.2.1 page 6: the responding peer receives a response...
  if I am not fully lost it should be a request, not a response?

 - 5.1 page 8 (4 times): e.g. -> e.g.,

 - 5.2 page 9: I trust you (and the WG) for the delays...

 - 8 page 13: drat -> draft (and IMHO document is far more appropriate
  as it will be published as an RFC before this draft :-).

 - 11.2 page 14: add a reference to RFC 6887 (and see below).

 - A.1 page 16: endpoint- independent -> endpoint-independent

 - A.1 page 16: even it doesn't provide a direct way of getting
  the external assigned address (but read 11.6) PCP [RFC 6887]
  must be added to UPnP-IGD and NAT-PMP. If you need some words,
  one can consider PCP as a far more complete version of NAT-PMP.
  BTW the "test address" comment applies too to PCP.


Francis.Dupont at

PS: my checker complains about standalone (-> stand-alone), inline
(?, please ignore), publically (-> publicly?, this should be addressed,
even by the RFC Editor, as it occurs many times), etc.