Subject: [P2PSIP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-share-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:42:56 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-p2psip-share-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-share/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a one set of substantive comments/questions, and some editorial
comments:

Substantive:

- I'm confused about the validation procedure. In step one, is this the
user name of the user attempting to write the resource? In step 5, I do
not understand how this terminates. Which ACL item is the "previously
selected" one. If that refers to the one selected in the last iteration
of steps 3 and 4, how do you know there are not more ACL items to iterate
through?

Editorial:

-1, first paragraph, first sentence: s/that/, which
-- recurring singular plural mismatch "resources with a variable name".

-1, 2nd paragraphs: "It transfers the authorization..."
What is the antecedent for "it"?

-3. First paragraph after numbered list, "user called Authorized Peer":
missing article.

-3.1, 3rd paragraph: Is the SHALL appropriate? Is an authorized user
actually required to access the array in the first place?

- 6.5, first paragraph: Does the MAY grant permission, or is it a
statement of fact?

-6.6, paragraphs 3 and 4: Are the MUSTs appropriate? Are there not other
(perhaps application specific)  reasons one might choose not to write the
value?

-- 2nd paragraph from end: The MUST seems more like a statement of fact.
(E.g. "The resulting ... integer is used...")

- 4.1, last paragraph: s/implementations/implementors

- 4.2, definition of res_name_ext: The sentence starting with "This name
serves..." is hard to parse.

-5.1, 4th paragraph (paragraph after example) : s/witch/which