Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload-08

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:07:23 +0300

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

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

Document:  draft-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload-08

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2015-4-27

IETF LC End Date: 2015-5-13

IESG Telechat date: 

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Standard Track  RFC.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

Some questions about the terminology in section 3

1.	Client - is this different from RFC6940, if not why repeat?
2.	Router - this is a different name for a peer? I also noticed that it
is used once in the document (defining constrained node) where it does not
provide any value
3.	Proxy and Proxy node - Why do you need both terms. In section 7 it
uses proxy(PN) like it is the same term.
4.	Constrained node the last sentence "In the latter case the node is
often connected to a  continuous energy power supply" it is not clear what
is the latter case, also what type of node is meant. Note that there is a
redundant "either a" in the previous sentence.