Last Call Review of draft-ietf-p2psip-share-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-p2psip-share
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-10-25
Requested 2016-10-13
Authors Alexander Knauf, Thomas Schmidt, Gabriel Hege, Matthias Wählisch
Draft last updated 2016-10-25
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by Matthew Miller (diff)
Secdir Early review of -08 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Russ Housley (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Rick Casarez (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Matthew Miller
State Completed
Review review-ietf-p2psip-share-09-genart-lc-miller-2016-10-25
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 10)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2016-10-25


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at



Document: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-09
Reviewer: Matthew A. Miller
Review Date: 2016-11-02
IETF LC End Date: 2016-10-25
IESG Telechat date: 2016-11-03


This document is ready to be published as a Standards Track
document once the nits are addressed.

Major issues: NONE

Minor issues: NONE

Nits/editorial comments:

* idnits reports a stale reference to I-D.ietf-p2psip-sip (should
  be RFC 7904).

* In 5.1. "Overview", the word "witch" should be "which".

* In 5.3. "Overlay Configuration Document Extension", there should
  be a space between "P2PSIP" and "[I-D.ietf-p2psip-sip]".

* In 6.2. "Revoking White Access", there should be a space between
  "see" and "[RFC6940]".

* In 6.4. "Operations of Storing Peers", a comma is missing between
  "peers" and "at" in the phrase "Storing peers at which Shared
  Resource and ACL are physically stored ...".

Non-issue comments:

* idnits is reporting weird spacing and "possible code", but that
  appears to be due to the Relax NG grammar.  In my opinion the nit
  can be safely ignored.

- m&m

Matt Miller
Cisco Systems, Inc.




 OpenPGP digital signature