Last Call Review of draft-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload-08
review-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload-08-genart-lc-even-2015-04-27-00

Request Review of draft-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-05-13
Requested 2015-04-16
Draft last updated 2015-04-27
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Roni Even (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Review review-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload-08-genart-lc-even-2015-04-27
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 10)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2015-04-27

Review
review-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload-08-genart-lc-even-2015-04-27

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Document:  

draft-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload-08

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2015–4-27

IETF LC End Date: 2015–5-13

IESG Telechat date: 

 

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Standard Track  RFC

.

 

 

Major issues:

Minor issues:

 

 

 

Nits/editorial comments:

Some questions about the terminology in section 3

Client – is this different from RFC6940, if not why repeat?

Router – this is a different name for a peer? I also noticed that it is used once in the document (defining constrained node) where it does not provide any value

Proxy and Proxy node – Why do you need both terms. In section 7 it uses proxy(PN) like it is the same term.

Constrained node the last sentence “In the latter case the node is often connected to a  continuous energy power supply” it is not clear what is the latter case, also what type of node is meant. Note that there is a redundant “either a” in the previous sentence.