Re[2]: draft-shemsedinov-usp-05.txt

KDZ> Security Considerations
KDZ> It should be clearly noted that protocol provides only
KDZ> a simple clear-text user/password authentication mechanism.
It is stated in unit 7.

  Concerning security, the USP defines only authorization mechanism
  and requirement to the USP server and the client realization.  This
  document does not contain explanations of data loose protection
  during its transmission over the transport channel or special
  traffic coding against the grabbing.  These tasks are duty of the
  transport layer protocols using by USP.

KDZ> IANA Considerations
KDZ> The document does not request the registration the URI scheme
KDZ> it details.
I looked RFC2396,2317,2318 concerning this question. All necessary
information, for the URI definition is contained in the document.
But, is it necessary to group or to extract definition into appendix.
It will be great to have the reference to an example of correct

KDZ> Also, the document does not establish any IANA
KDZ> registries but appears to have a number of extensible fields.
You are right, the registration necessity for RPC interfaces is
supposed in order to prevent the naming conflict.
Whether is it IANA function?

KDZ> Also, the Section 1 sentence
KDZ>   I am distinctly aware of all complexities ...
Probably, it is better to remove this sentence.

KDZ> Lastly, in doing a quick review the document, I noticed a number
KDZ> of editorial issues and the usual nits.  These I will raise to the
KDZ> author separately (with CC to the Patrik) when I get a chance.
Thanks for your comments; they are really worth.

Best regards,

Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2002 08:20:27 UTC