I'm finally, very belatedly, following up on some of your comments.
You can see the intermediate results at
Please see inline for comments; I will divide the response to avoid
mile-long messages. I've elided parts that I've simply copied into
the draft more or less verbatim.
On Dec 18, 2006, at 1:26 PM, Matt Lepinski wrote:
Here are some comments on draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch-01. In
general, I like the current state of the document and therefore
many of my comments are just minor editorial suggestions.
- The term "region map" is defined but the term only appears in the
Security Considerations section. This may be acceptable, however,
consider deleting this definition and rewording the security
considerations section to use other terms. (Note: If the term
'coverage region' were specifically defined, its definition could
- In Section 7.1 you state "The collection of all trees for one
service is known as a forest". For consistancy, you may want to
augment the definition of a Forest Guide as follows: "... the
coverage regions of all trees for a particular service".
Additionally, Section 7.1 indicates that (in a logical sense) each
tree provides mappings for a particular service. Therefore, you
might want to consider augmenting the definitoin of a tree in a
similar fashion: "... of authoritative mapping servers for a
Ecrit mailing list