Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review: Last Call <draft-ietf-p2psip-base-17.txt>
Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Tue, 09 August 2011 23:14 UTC
Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2060221F8B04; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 16:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.08
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.08 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.917, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tpTeC4DNwkCW; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 16:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C5221F8B02; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 16:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so498374vws.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=AMKWaaNDDn847SiLu9bY124f85DjLrEcAHwaeTpDmaU=; b=QV5cZQwh+THhYhvr3yu4+jFsYEyCcv5YBxKbHGKV7IBOHKxU/rRng1ILB9cq3ZPr1f GUPii28lN+nA42zRLfbBwsEck59TCA1GQb/1Y/DHhum1x6LIk0ZRjMCRi0s9I6LMNf/x nc8ZNEBD7qBtLupKEuzgv54rOkfOUxW0dDBDY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.69.194 with SMTP id g2mr4406587vdu.451.1312931695647; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.167.34 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 16:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHBDyN47xqCP=irYZ7bV97W2dqvPKW8giMAW+_A8UYJ3W05K+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHBDyN47xqCP=irYZ7bV97W2dqvPKW8giMAW+_A8UYJ3W05K+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 18:14:55 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN4Ot8RkosbL6aF_0H1_Ksj7tzRxwWg9YeEKcmaY9MFr+Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-p2psip-base.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf307cffd8555b4a04aa1abbeb"
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, IETF-Discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, hgs+p2psip@cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review: Last Call <draft-ietf-p2psip-base-17.txt>
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 23:14:30 -0000
I'm resending to try to capture one additional author (Henning) that bounced and the Gen-ART mailing list. I could not find a valid email for Salman Basset Please reply to this email. Thanks, Mary. On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>wrote: > > 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>. > > Sorry for the delay, but a two week IETF-LC for a 150 page document two > weeks before an IETF meeting virtually ensures that the document won't be > carefully reviewed by the community and that directorate reviews will are > late ;) While this review was done specifically on the -17, I have > reviewed the diff and these comments still apply to the -18. > > ======================================================================= > > Document: draft-ietf-p2psip-base-17 > Reviewer: Mary Barnes > Review Date: 9 August 2011 > IETF LC End Date: 22 July 2011 > > Summary: Not Ready. > > Comments: > ---------------- > The document is very a dense (with detailed technical information) and long > (150 page) specification for a Peer-to-peer signaling protocol. While the > overall technical functionality seems fairly correct and thoroughly > specified, the primary issue is a tremendous lack of normative language in > the main body of the document. Non-inclusive details of such are included > below. > > Major Issues: > ------------------- > > General: > --There is a fair number of cases where normative language should be used. > I have detailed some (but certainly not all) instances where it is lacking > with proposed rewording. I have also noted cases where it is used (lower > case) where it could be confused with needing normative language and where > it isn't necessary and there are some cases where it's just not clear. I > consider these major since it can impact interoperability and could lead > developers to not implement key functionality. > > --There is also little or no normative language for the majority of the > elements in the structures - i.e., the reader has to assume which elements > are mandatory and which are optional and it's not always clear. For > example, rather than saying "Field x contains blah", it should say "Field x > MUST contain blah" and rather than "The contents of the message will be x, y > and z", it should say something like "The message MUST (or SHOULD) contain > x, y and z". I have not detailed the places where this is necessary in most > cases. The authors should review the detailed definition for each of the > messages. > > --The message names are used inconsistently. The IANA registry has the > message codes all lower case. There are places in the examples and the body > of the document where the _req part is missing, there is no "_", the first > letters are Upper case, etc. The messages are also used in a general sense > - e.g., "MUST perform an Attach", which should really be stated as "MUST > send an attach_req message) > > Major - Detailed: > > - Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.3: lots of changes needed to reword using > normative language. > > - Section 3.4, last paragraph: Needs to be reworded normatively and more > precisely. It's really not clear to me what the required behavior is as it > first says it needs to (which I'm not sure is a SHOULD or is REQUIRED to) > maintain connections to all the peers near and enough others.., but how much > is "enough". Also, what is meant by the "specified link set" - is that > referring to all the nearby peers or the peers+enough others? Or is this > more clearly (and normatively) specified elsewhere, such that a reference > could be added. > > - Section 4.2: needs normative language - i.e.: > --"Each Usage needs to …" -> "Each Usage MUST…" > > - Section 5.1.1: Bullet items need normative language > -- 1st bullet: It's also not clear what the its are in "it passes it up". > I think it should be "the node passes the message up to the upper layers". > However, this probably needs to be normative language - i.e., "the node > MUST pass the message to the upper layers". The same applies to the third > bullet. > --bullet 2: "the message is destined for this node and is passed up…" -> > "the message is destined for this node and MUST be passed…., > > - Section 5.1.2: > -- Paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 need to be reworded to have normative > statements. > -- Last paragraph (9) mixes normative text with in an example. The > normative text needs to be separated from the example - e.g., split some of > the sentences into the normative behavior and then the example. > > -Section 5.2.1 is totally inconsistent with the use of normative language > (i.e., lower case occurrences and lack of KEY words) - shouldn't the > following be normative statements something like the following: > -- First paragraph: > ---First sentence: "a node constructs" -> "a node MUST construct". > --- 3rd sentence: "resulting message will use the normal overlay routing" > -> "resulting message MUST use the normal overlay routing" > --- 4th sentence: "The node can also" -> "The node MAY also" > -- Third paragraph: > --- 3rd sentence: "a single request can also" -> "a single request MAY > also" > -- Fourth paragraph: > --- 1st sentence: this could be interpreted as normative: "Because > messages may" -> "Because messages can" > --- 3rd sentence: "the request is retransmitted" -> "the request MUST be > retransmitted" > > -Section 5.3.2: > -- General: some of the contents of the structure have normative language > and others don't. There is some normative behavior defined for these fields > later, so perhaps adding section references as you do for some fields would > be helpful. > > For example: > --"overlay": shouldn't this be normative: "the overlay name is hashed with > SHA-1" -> "the overlay name MUST be hashed with SHA-1" > --"destination_list": seems like some of this should be normative? > > -Section 5.3.2.1: > --1st paragraph: shouldn't this be normative? > "the configuration document has a sequence number" -> "the configuration > document MUST contain a sequence number" > -- 1st paragraph, last sentence: "may" -> "can" > > -Section 5.3.2.2: > --Paragraph after the 1st structure: Shouldn't this be stated normatively > since it is described how the structure MUST be handled depending upon the > contents? > --Paragraph after second structure, suggest the following changes: > ---"the generation counters should" -> "the generation counters SHOULD" > ---"An implementation could use.." -> "An implementation MAY use…" > ---"the node confirms that the generation counter matches" -> "the node > MUST confirm that the generation counter matches" > ---"If it does not match, it is silently dropped." -> "If it does not > match, it MUST be silently dropped." > > -Section 5.3.3.1: > --1st para: "a request returns" -> "a request MUST return" > --1st para: "then the message code is the response code that matches the > request" -> > "then the message code MUST be set to the response code that matches the > request" > --2nd para: "message code is set" -> "message code MUST be set" > > -Section 5.3.4 - needs normative language: > --1st paragraph after GenericCertificate structure: > ---"All signatures are formatted" -> "Alls signatures MUST be formatted" > ---"The input structure…varies.." -> "The input structure … MAY vary…" > > -Section 5.4.1: "need to be described" -> "MUST be described" > > -Section 5.4.2-Section 7. These sections need to be carefully reviewed and > updated appropriately with normative text. [ I have marks up for pages > 55-102 where normative language is needed if someone wants those scanned and > forwarded - I'm just too lazy to type them all out.] > > - Section 8: There is only one actual normative word used in this section! > There is a lc "should" that ought to be "SHOULD". I don't know if the > authors assumed that the normative language in TURN was sufficient, but I do > not believe that is the case as it leaves the normative behavior to be > inferred by the reader/implementor. Rather than rewrite the whole section > myself, the authors need to review carefully. For example, there are "needs > to", which likely are really and lots of present tense statements (e.g., > "The address of the peer is stored…"), which ought to be MUSTs or SHOULDs. > > - Section 9.2: seems like this needs normative language. Suggest the > following: > OLD: > For this Chord based topology plugin, the size of the Resource-ID is > 128 bits. The hash of a Resource-ID is computed using SHA-1 > [RFC3174]then truncating the SHA-1 result to the most significant 128 > bits. > NEW: > For Chord-RELOAD, the size of the Resource-ID MUST be > 128 bits. The hash of a Resource-ID MUST be computed using SHA-1 > [RFC3174]. The SHA-1 result MUST be truncated to the most significant > 128 bits. > > - Section 9.3: Needs normative language. > OLD: > If a peer is not responsible for a Resource-ID k, but is directly > connected to a node with Node-ID k, then it routes the message to > that node. Otherwise, it routes the request to the peer in the > routing table that has the largest Node-ID that is in the interval > between the peer and k. If no such node is found, it finds the > smallest Node-Id that is greater than k and routes the message to > that node. > NEW: > If a peer is not responsible for a Resource-ID k, but is directly > connected to a node with Node-ID k, then it MUST route the message to > that node. Otherwise, it MUST route the request to the peer in the > routing table that has the largest Node-ID that is in the interval > between the peer and k. If no such node is found, it MUST find the > smallest Node-Id that is greater than k and MUST route the message to > that node. > > - Section 9.4: Needs normative language. > > - Section 9.5: While this section does have a fair amount of normative > language, it is still lacking in a few cases: > --Item 2.: "should" -> "SHOULD" > --Item 5.: "The AP sends the response…" -> "The AP MUST send the > response…" > --1st paragraph after list: "…can directly connect…" -> "MAY directly > connect" > --2nd paragraph after list: "it can still populate" -> "it MAY still > populate" > --2nd paragraph after list: the description of the use of PING should be > reworded with normative language (I'll leave that exercise to the authors) > --3rd paragraph after the list: "JP simply sends" -> "JP MUST send" > > - Section 9.7.1: > --1st para: ".., it then sends…" -> ".., it then MUST send …" > --3rd para: needs normative language > OLD: > In no event does > an attempt to reestablish connectivity with a lost neighbor allow the > peer to remain in the neighbor table. > NEW: > In the case of > an attempt to reestablish connectivity with a lost neighbor, the peer > MUST not remain in the neighbor table. > OR: > In the case of > an attempt to reestablish connectivity with a lost neighbor, the peer > MUST be removed from the neighbor table. > -- 4th para: "should" -> "SHOULD" (2 cases), "use Pings" -> "MUST use > Pings" > > -Section 9.7.2: > --1st para: "..the failed peer are removed.." -> "…the failed peer MUST be > removed.." > --2nd para: "…the peer initiates…" -> "…the peer MUST initiate.." > > -Section 9.7.3: > --1st para after list: "is needed" -> "is REQUIRED" > --3rd para after list: "the peer sends an Update" -> "the peer MUST send > an Update" > > -Section 9.7.4.4: Needs a scrub for normative language > > -Section 9.9: Needs a scrub for normative language. > > -Section 10.1: General: Needs a lot of work to be specified using normative > language. The majority of the configuration elements are not specified > using normative language - for example, terms such as permitted, allowed, > valid are used in statements rather than normative language > or they are indicative of the need for normative language. A specific > example is in the definition for "clients-permitted": > > OLD: > This element represents whether clients are > permitted or whether all nodes must be peers. If it is set to > "true" or absent, this indicates that clients are permitted. If > it is set to "false" then nodes are not allowed to remain clients > after the initial join. > > NEW: > This element represents whether clients are > permitted or whether all nodes need to be peers. If clients > are permitted, the element MUST be set to "true" or absent. > If the nodes are not allowed to remain clients after the > initial join, the element MUST be set to "false". > > --Section 10.1 - 4th para after the element list states that "All of the > non optional values MUST be provided". However, the list of elements in the > previous paragraph are not specifically identified as non optional. I think > the first 3 are mandatory. So, I would suggest to re-word the 3rd paragraph > as follows and delete the 1st sentence in the 4th paragraph noted above: > OLD: > In addition, the kind element contains the following elements: > max-count: the maximum number of values which members of the overlay > must support. > data-model: the data model to be used. > max-size: the maximum size of individual values. > access-control: the access control model to be used. > max-node-multiple: This is optional and only used when the access > control is NODE-MULTIPLE. This indicates the maximum value for > the i counter. This is an integer greater than 0. > > NEW: > In addition, the kind element MUST contain the following elements: > max-count: the maximum number of values which members of the overlay > must support. > data-model: the data model to be used. > max-size: the maximum size of individual values. > access-control: the access control model to be used. > > The kind element MAY also contain the following element: > max-node-multiple: if the access control is NODE-MULTIPLE, > this element MAY be included. This indicates the maximum value for > the i counter. It MUST be an integer greater than 0. > > --Section 10.1, next to last para: There's no normative language, but it > seems there should be since it is specifying specification computations and > encoding that I believe are required. > > - Section 10.2: Needs more normative language: > > -- 2nd para: > OLD: This value is provided by the user or some other out of band > provisioning mechanism. > > NEW: This value MUST be provided by the user or some other out of band > provisioning mechanism." > > -- 3rd para: > OLD: > Once an address and URL for the configuration server is determined, > the peer forms an HTTPS connection to that IP address. > NEW: > Once an address and URL for the configuration server is determined, > the peer MUST form an HTTPS connection to that IP address. > > -- 4th para: "which replaces" -> "which MUST replace" > > -- 5th para: "nodes obtain the" -> "nodes MUST obtain the" > > - Section 10.3: > -- 3rd para: "is performed" -> "MUST be performed". > -- 3rd para: Bullets need to be modified to normative. > -- 4th para: "the certificate contains" -> "the certificate MUST contain" > -- para after 2nd set of bullets: needs normative language. > -- 2nd para after 2nd set of bullets: "The node then reads…" -> "The node > MUST then use…" > > - Section 10.5: > --Second para: "the joining node first forms" -> "the joining node MUST > first form" > --3rd para: text uses the phrase "it can note the Node-ID in the response > and use this Node-ID to start sending requests". It's not clear whether the > use of the Node-ID is a MAY or a MUST. > > - Section 12. I'm assuming that the security directorate has reviewed this > in detail, thus my focus in reviewing this section was on general > understanding. The biggest issues is that there is NO normative language at > all in the security section. As in other sections, terms like "need", > "are/is used/sent, etc.", "ensure", lower case reserved words rather than > upper case, etc. are used when normative language ought to have been used. > > > - Section 13. IANA Registrations: > - General: there seem to be several registries for which the > usage/requirement is unclear as there's no mention of such in the body of > the document. In general, references to the sections in the document > describing the information included in the registries would be more than > helpful. > > - Section 13.5: Creates a RELOAD Application Registry, but the use and need > for such isn't described elsewhere in the document. > > - Section 13.12. Forwarding Options Registry. SEction 5.3.2.3 seems to > define three flags for the Forwarding options type, so it's not clear to me > why this registry has just "invalid" and "reserved" > > > - Section 13.15: Defines/registers a RELOAD URI schema but there is no > mention of this URI anywhere else in the document. In what context is it > used? > > > Minor Issues: > --------------------- > > - Section 1.2.1, 2nd paragraph: I don't understand the example as to why a > single application requires multiple usages - i.e, why voicemail? Isn't the > intent to say that an application might need to use both SIP and XMPP - > i.e., you wouldn't define a "usage" for an application, would you? > > - Section 2. Some of the definitions use terms that are not yet defined, so > that's not particularly helpful - i.e,. Attach and Update are used. In some > cases (e.g., Connection Table), you could just delete the statement with the > reference. > > - Section 3.3, last paragraph. Add a reference to 5.4.2.4 after > "RouteQuery method" > > - Section 5.1: "If any of these are incorrect…" - need to specify what > qualifies as "incorrect" - is it wrong formatting, invalid header field > value, etc.? > > - Section 5.1.2: > --1st paragraph: I have no idea what the "other three cases" references. > > - Section 5.2: "may be configured" -> "can be configured", "alternative > routing algorithms may be selected" -> "alternative routing algorithms MAY > be selected" > > - Section 5.3: The three parts of the messages are listed and the last > sentence says that "The following sections describe the format of each part > of the message", but there are 4 sub-sections in 5.3, with the first section > NOT describing one of the three parts of the messages. I suggest to strike > that last sentence and just put references to the sections in the list items > for each of the three messages. > > -Section 5.3.3: > --"critical" description: "Whether this extension must be.." "Whether this > extension needs to be…" > > -Section 5.3.4: 1st para after certificate structure: "may contain" -> > "MAY contain" > > -Section 5.5: It would be helpful to highlight that foundation, priority > and type are based on ICE, in particular since ICE is not discussed until > the subsequent section - e.g., "the foundation production" -> "the ICE > foundation production". > > - Section 5.6: > -- The last three paragraphs are confusing. > ---In particular, it's not clear what algorithms are being referenced in > this sentence: > "We will first define each of these algorithms, then > define overlay link protocols that use them." > --- In the note paragraph, I believe "These protocols have been chosen…" is > referring to the three overlay link protocols supported by RELOAD per this > document. > ---The Note to implementors paragraph seems out of context > --- Per my next comment, I suggest to move the detailed discussion of > future overlay link protocols to the appendix, so some of this text may be > relevant only to that. > > -Section 5.6.1: I suggest that the sub-sections in this section be moved > to an appendix and a reference to such be added. > > -Section 5.6.3.1.1, next to the last paragraph: > "when a link may be failing" -> "when a link might be failing" > > - Section 9.1: While this is an overview, it seems to me that some of this > is describing normative behavior (that I don't see specified else). Per the > general comment, I would reword the first sentence as follows: > OLD: > The algorithm described here is a modified version of the Chord > algorithm. > NEW: > The algorithm described here, Chord-RELOAD is a modified version > of the Chord algorithm. > > - Section 10.3, 1st para: "required" -> "REQUIRED" > > - Section 10.3.1, last sentence: "must" -> "MUST" > > - Section 10.4, 1st para, last sentence: "should use" -> "SHOULD use" > > - Section 11 - examples: > --General - there are no detailed messages shown anywhere for the examples. > There should be at least one, in particular given the comment above about > the RELOAD URI that is registered, but not mentioned anywhere else in the > document. > --first example (see my nit below about the examples not being numbered or > labeled in any way): The third sentence says that "It gets routed to the > admitting peer (AP), yet the flow shows that the message first gets routed > to the PP and then onto AP. It would be helpful if that were clarified. > - Also (general), the text mentions the use of ICE. It's not clear to me > exactly where in the flow that happens - it would be good to annotate such > (i.e., in a similar manner as the TLS is illustrated). > - next to the last example (text on page 131, diagram on page 132): I'm > quite confused as the text states that JP has received an update from AP and > thus now knows APs predecessors, which are also JP's predecessors, so JP > Attaches to them. However, the diagram does not show JP getting an Update > from AP and it shows JP doing Updates to PPP and PP rather than Attaches (as > the text suggests). > > - Section 13.10. Overlay link types: These specific string types are not > used elsewhere in the document. Suggest that a reference to 5.6 be added > and these particular strings be included in parenthesis after the items in > the list. > > > - Section 13.16, Security considerations portion: > -- The first sentence doesn't make sense. Did you mean? > "This media type is typically not used to > transport information that needs to be kept confidential, > however, there are cases where the integrity of the information is > important." > -- "then the contents of the file need to be…" -> "then the contents of the > file MUST be …" > > > > Nits: > ----- > - General: kind is sometimes "Kind" and sometimes "kind". The former is > more readable and highlights it as a reserved word. > > - Section 2. > --General: It would be helpful if the terms were alphabetized. > --Node: "We use the term "Node" to refer to …" -> "Refers to …" > > - Section 3.2: > -- 2nd para, last sentence: "refer such" -> "refer to such" > -- 3rd para, 1st sentence: "concept" -> "entity" > > - Section 4.1.4, 4th paragraph: I'm still not getting the applicability of > voicemail as a RELOAD Kind (per the reference also in section 1.2.1). I > guess you are talking about a voicemail message (in this case) and a server > or application in section 1.2.1? Voicemail just does not seem like an > obvious example to me. > > - Section 5.1.1, last bullet: "In that case,…" -> "In the latter case, > …" > > - Section 5.1.2: > -- 2nd para: "arrange" -> "ensure", "This may be arranged" -> "This can > be arranged…" > -- 3rd para (1st after bullets): It's not clear that A…E is a set of > ordered nodes in the example. I would suggest to reword as: > OLD: > As an example of the first strategy, if node D > NEW: > Consider an example with nodes A, B, C, D and E, respectively. If > node D…. > > - Section 5.3.1.1: First two sentences can be reworded more succinctly - > you're not really providing definitions here, put rather describing the > the syntax for and providing examples illustrative of the presentation > language. > > OLD: > The following definitions are used throughout RELOAD and so are > defined here. They also provide a convenient introduction to how to > read the presentation language. > NEW: > This section provides an introduction to the presentation language > used throughout RELOAD. > > - Section 5.3.3.1: Error_Data_Too_Old is duplicated. > > - Section 5.5.1.6: Add references for SCTP and DCCP. > > - Section 6.4.1.3: The reference to "this Version" is superfluous. > Propose the following change: > OLD: > This version of RELOAD (unlike previous versions) does not have an > explicit Remove operation. > NEW: > RELOAD does not have an explicit Remove operation. > > - Section 9: General. The first sentence states that the algorithm defined > here is referred to as "chord-reload", however, subsequent sections don't > seem to use that term. It would be more clear if that term was used. And, > really, it would be more consistent to use the term Chord-RELOAD. However, > this should also be consistent with the IANA-Registration which has > CHORD-RELOAD. > > - Section 9.7.4.3, 3rd para: > -- Remove "Note to implementers". Text already highlights that the text is > specific to implementations. > -- "may be found" -> "can be found" > > - Section 9.8: "For this topology plugin" -> "For Chord-RELOAD" > > - Section 10.2, 2nd para: "determines" -> "determining" > > - Section 11: > - General: there are no labels for any of the call flows, so it's not > always clear what the text is referring to. In general, I think the text > precedes the flow. > - "abbreviation" -> "abbreviations" > > - Section 13.16: > --Interoperability considerations: "knows" -> "known" > > - Section 14: "provied" -> "provided" > > - Appendix C: Delete now - it's totally useless as is. >