Subject: [Simple] WGLC review of draft-ietf-simple-intradomain-federation-04

From: Michael Froman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 14:35:41 -0600

In general I think the draft is ready to progress, but I have a few  
comments/suggestions and a few nits.

Comments/Suggestions:
Section 8.1.1 - I understand the routing rule, but I think an example  
of why the
         root node wouldn't always be the one to serve the initial  
request would
         be useful.
Section 8.1.2.2 - It is difficult to see how "This means that a  
presence server
         cannot send notifications on its own until it has confirmed
         subscriptions from downstream servers." can be accomplished  
and still
         comply with "immediate" initial NOTIFY requirements and  
additionally
         keep the initiating watcher from starting retry logic.
Section 8.1.2.2 - Distributed provisioning is making many assumptions  
about each of
         the potentially different vendors' presence servers making  
the same
         "unioned presence" approved decisions on what gets  
propagated.  Given
         that some of these servers may not know that they're  
cooperating in a
         unioned presence environment, this might be a difficult  
section to
         realize in the field.  I guess this is talked about some in  
section 9,
         but I think it would be fair to admit to the difficulty  
briefly in
         advance of section 9 in order to assure the reader the  
problem was
         considered, but is addressed elsewhere in the document.
Section 8.1.2.4, 4th paragraph - "Standardized database interface"  
between various
         vendors - is this at all reasonable to expect?  It seems like  
much of the
         document it geared toward dealing making "incompatible"  
implementations from
         different vendors work together.  This seems like an odd  
place to assume
         they will be compatible.
Section 8.2.1 "it rejects the second subscription with an indication  
of a loop"
         Does that indication exist for presence already?
Section End of 8.2.1 - still an open issue?

Nits:
Section 2, 2nd to last paragraph, last sentence: "This is a  
consequence to their
	loose coupling."  Should that be "This is a consequence of their loose
	coupling." ?

Section 5, last paragraph: "In the exclusive model, its one at a  
time."  its ==> it's

Section 7.1.4, 2nd paragraph: "to terminate its ongoing  
subscriptions"  its ==> it's

Section 8.1.2.2, last (full) paragraph: "if these rules are followed"  
is missing
	leading capitalization.

Section 8.2.1, 2nd to last paragraph: "basically knows its the child"  
its ==> it's

Cheers,
Michael.