Re: WGLC of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-cema-05

Hi Paul,

> This generally looks good, but I found some editorial errors:
>
> Something has gone wrong in the editing of section 6.4. The following
> paragraph now says the same thing twice:
>
>    This document assumes that Middleboxes are able to modify the SDP
>    address information associated with the MSRP media, and that they are
>    able to modify the SDP address information associated with the MSRP
>    media.
>
> This is evolved from a paragraph that had two sentences saying
> complementary things, and the point made in that 2nd sentence has been lost.

The 2nd sentence was removed based on IESG comments, but it seems like some copy/paste error has occured.

So, I suggest remvoing the text after comma.

------------

> In section 7.3: s/is use without/is used without/

I'll fix as suggested.

------------

> In section 7.5:
>
>    However, this relies on that the SDP signaling is
>    integrity protected, which may not always be the case.
>
> This isn't proper English. I suggest:
>
>    However, this relies on SDP signaling being
>    integrity protected, which may not always be the case.

I'll fix as suggested.

------------

> Also in that section the following has English problems:
>
>    Therefore, it addition to the authentication mechanisms defined in
>    RFC 4975, it is RECOMMENDED that a CEMA-enabled MSRP endpoint also
>    supports self-signed certificates together Certificate Management
>    Service [RFC6072], to which it publishes its self-signed certificate
>    and from which it fetches on demand the self-signed certificates of
>    other endpoints.
>
> I suggest:
>
> s/it addition/in addition/
> s/together/together with the/

I'll fix as suggested.

------------

> In section 7.6:
>
>   - MSRPS: Security Mechanisms that does not rely on trusted signaling
>    such as name based authentication
>
> s/that does not/that do not/

I'll fix as suggested.

------------

Thanks for the comments!

Regards,

Christer




On 5/3/12 5:52 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> This is a working group last call for draft-ietf-simple-msrp-cema-05.
>
> We performed a previous WGLC on this draft last fall, and requested publication of revision 03.  Since then, the IESG review resulted in a significant rewrite of the security considerations section, as well as a few other changes. We want to confirm that the current text still reflects work group consensus.
>
> Since this is a repeat last call, we will attempt a shortened review cycle. Please focus your review on the changes since revision 03, and send your comments to the list and the draft authors by the end of Friday, 11 May 2012.
>
> The current version is available at the following URL:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-simple-msrp-cema-05
>
> And here's a diff between 05 and 03:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url1=draft-ietf-simple-msrp-cema-03.txt&url2=draft-ietf-simple-msrp-cema-05.txt
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple