hello. thanks, peter, for your review! On 2018-11-20 17:21, Peter Yee wrote:
Page 8, Section 7: RFC 2223 requires you do more than provide an ellipsis here. You might want to consider what makes sense. Perhaps a discussion of what happens to a client that obtains a maliciously formatted service-desc or even an errant service-desc. While a human might be able to see through problems in a "service-doc", it's quite possible that a machine will want to take precautions about handling the received data and acting upon it.
thanks for the suggestion! https://github.com/dret/I-D/commit/3f065e662ccd66419c92246a2bba9bd8c5127ade adds security considerations.
Nits/editorial comments: Page 1, Note to Readers: Presumably this section will be removed prior to publication.
done in https://github.com/dret/I-D/commit/f5e8c10f4a9400d55a867d64b8aef9846ae4106b
Page 3, 4th full paragraph, 1st sentence: Delete the comma after "consumption" and delete the "for" following that. Page 5, Section 3.3, 1st paragraph, 1st section: change "of" to "between". Put the section references in parentheses. Page 5, Section 3.3, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: insert "a" before "better".
addressed in https://github.com/dret/I-D/commit/cc902371fff59b96d3185e643522fe8f1462d042
i think with these changes in the draft i have addressed the comments in this review. i have posted a new version of the draft that includes the changes mentioned here.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-service-link-rel-07 thanks again and kind regards, dret. -- erik wilde | mailto:erik.wilde@xxxxxxxx | | http://dret.net/netdret | | http://twitter.com/dret |
