Subject: [P2PSIP] Review of DRR and RPR documents

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:51:05 +0100

Hi,

As agreed during the last meeting, I've performed a review of
draft-ietf-p2psip-drr and draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr documents, prior to
shipping them to the IESG for publication. My reviews are attached to
this e-mail (I added comments to the PDF version of each draft, hope
this is fine).

I'd like authors to go through the comments before sending the documents
to the IESG. There might be some issues that need to be brought to the
WG for discussion.

I'd also like to ask the WG for opinion on one particular aspect. I'm
wondering if it would be better to merge both documents into a single
one. Currently, both documents make quite a lot of cross-references, but
still there is duplicate text in both of them, so I'd be more in favor
of merging (personal opinion). Please, comment on this on the mailing
list.

Thanks,

Carlos

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:09:54 +0200

Hi Carlos,
Thanks for the review, we will look at the comments as for merging the documents. Originally it was one document and it was a WG decision to split it to allow implementation to be compliant with an RFC if they want only to support DRR or RPR
Roni Even

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Carlos Jes?s Bernardos Cano
Sent: 22 January, 2013 1:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [P2PSIP] Review of DRR and RPR documents

Hi,

As agreed during the last meeting, I've performed a review of draft-ietf-p2psip-drr and draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr documents, prior to shipping them to the IESG for publication. My reviews are attached to this e-mail (I added comments to the PDF version of each draft, hope this is fine).

I'd like authors to go through the comments before sending the documents to the IESG. There might be some issues that need to be brought to the WG for discussion.

I'd also like to ask the WG for opinion on one particular aspect. I'm wondering if it would be better to merge both documents into a single one. Currently, both documents make quite a lot of cross-references, but still there is duplicate text in both of them, so I'd be more in favor of merging (personal opinion). Please, comment on this on the mailing list.

Thanks,

Carlos

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:43:32 +0100

Hi Roni,

Thanks for the prompt reaction.

If the split/merging discussion has already taken place, I don't want to
bring it again, but I just found a bit artificial the separation in two
documents (and now I see why). I see the point of implementation
compliance with one RFC and not the other, but current text in RPR
refers to protocol extensions defined in DRR, so we are not there
either.

As I see it (personal opinion) if we want to keep two separate
documents, we still need some additional work on the wording of them,
and we might end up duplicating some content. The merging approach would
make the text cleaner, but would have the problem you pointed out.

Thanks,

Carlos