[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Ecrit] Comments on draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch-01 (definitions)

Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Comments on draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch-01 definitions
From: Henning Schulzrinne
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:36:12 -0400

I'm finally, very belatedly, following up on some of your comments. You can see the intermediate results at

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/draft/lost-arch/draft-ietf-ecrit- mapping-arch-03.html

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.

3. Definitions

- 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 include


- 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 particular service."



Ecrit mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [Ecrit] Comments on draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch-01 (definitions), Henning Schulzrinne <=