Hi Christer,
Thanks for your comments, I agree with most of them. Allow me to answer a
couple of issues of disagreements.
> - Requirements
> -- REQ-4: Isn't this requirement already covered by REQ-3?
No. Req-3 claims for a mechanism for the recipient of a message to
determine whether the receive message is private or regular.
Req-4 claims for the a mechanism to send private messages.
> - There is no definition/reference for "roster".
Roster is a not a technical term. According to the Merriam-Webster
dictionary, there are two entrances for "roster":
1
a : a roll or list of personnel
b : such a list giving the order in which a duty is to be performed <a
duty roster> c : the persons listed on a roster
2: an itemized list
I think the term is clear when we use it in the context of a conference
with participants.
/Miguel
On 11/02/2012 11:13, Christer Holmberg 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>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-simple-chat-13
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 12-02.11
IETF LC End Date: 12-02-06
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: Ready, but some additional text may be needed based on the
minor issues.
Major issues: None
Minor issues:
- The second paragraph of section 7.1 says that a NICKNAME request MUST contain
a Use-Nickname header, but in the sixth paragraph the inclusion is a SHOULD.
- It is not clearly indicated whether the Use-Nickname header is allowed for
other methods than NICKNAME.
- Section 8 does not specify whether there are SDP offer/answer
considerations/restrictions associated with the new attribute. For example:
-- Must the attribute tokens in an answer be a subset of the tokens in an offer?
-- Can an SDP answer contain an attribute if the offer didn't?
-- If a user sends a new SDP offer within a session, can the token values be
modified? What does it mean if the attribute is not present in a new SDP offer?
Nits/editorial comments:
- Sometimes the document talks about "multi-party chat", "multi-party conference",
"conference", and "chat room". Would it be possible to use more consistant terminology?
- Requirements
-- REQ-4: Isn't this requirement already covered by REQ-3?
-- REQ-6: Change "progress" to "duration" or "length".
- There is no definition/reference for "roster".
Regards,
Christer
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
