Subject: [Speermint] (extremely) late comments on draft-ietf-speermint-consolidated-presence-im-usecases-03

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:37:02 +0100

Hi,

i found a couple of nits in the IM-usecases draft. I'm aware that i'm 
_really_ late, but since i think they improve the document, here you go:

- Abstract: please remove "(SP)" from the abstract. Definition of 
acronyms must not happen in the abstract.

- 1. (Introduction): Please explain the acronym "PSTN" acronym here - 
it's not on the well known list of abbreviations.

- 1. (Introduction): the second "(RTC)" (5 lines from end of section) is 
  not needed (is explained in first line already). Please remove it.

- 2.1. It might be good to mention which user is associated with with 
peering network - otherwise that becomes a riddle :). So please add 
something like "[email-masked] (with example.com hosted by Peer 
A)..." to the text.

- 2.2. I think the "Ad-hock" group should be an "Ad-hoc" group. Also, in 
that paragraph, you say "A public group may be created by Alice..." 
while i think it should read "An ad-hoc group may be created by Alice..."

- 2.6. "Fully standardized (became RFCs)" is weak language - as you 
know, not every RFC is a standard. Also, what is "fully standardized"?

- 2.7. I think it should start with "A Federation" instead of 
"Federation". Also, "Peer Networks may connect each other via a 
peer-to-peer fashion" should probably read "Peer Networks may connect to 
each other in a peer-to-peer fashion".

- 2.7. The text "the other Peering Network is who it claims to be" 
sounds unclear to me. You could replace that text by "that enables each 
Peering Network to clearly identify Peering partners, and set up secured 
trust relationships" - but that is just a personal suggestion.

- 4. I'd replace "We are seeing today users are concerned with 
providing.." with "We are seeing today users are concerned about 
providing .." and "domain" with "domain name".

- 4. The reference to section 2.3 would look better in parentheses "... 
(see Section 2.3)".

- 4. Last sentence on page 6 - It would be good to change that to "This 
document discusses ause cases for peering between Peer Networks. It is 
out of scope of this document to provide for..."

- 5. Acknowledgements: nit: My last name is misspelled :)

- 6.1. Normative References: You don't use RFC 2119 language in the 
draft - please remove that reference, it's not neccessary.

That's all, i hope it was helpful (though very late).

thanks,

Alex

_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint