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

Hi Nancy,

> I also agree that this version is fine.
>
> I have just one typo on top of the ones mentioned below:
>
> In section 7.4.  TLS Usage with Middleboxes
>
>   This is the main use case for the CEMA extension; the endpoints
>   expect one or more Middlebox.
>
> In the above, s/Middlebox/Middleboxes/

I'll fix as suggested.

Thank You!

Regards,

Christer





-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
Sent: May-04-12 10:07 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Simple] WGLC of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-cema-05

Ben,

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.

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

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.

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/

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/

        Thanks,
        Paul


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