Sharon Chisholm <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> supposedly scribbled:
> I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for this > specification (for background on Gen-ART, please see > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Why? > > Document: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zorn-radius-port-type-03.txt > > Summary: > > This draft has serious issues, described in the review, and needs to > be rethought. > > Comments: > > 1. Where can the complete and most up to date list of NAS-Port-Type > Attribute values be found? At www.iana.org or in an update to this > proposed-RFC? The document does not say. If it is the latter, do we > actually need to publish this as an RFC? If it is the former, this > should be clearly stated in the document. So, what is not clear about "This document is intended to act as a request for allocation of the designated numbers by IANA in the appropriate registry [RADTYP]."? What would possibly lead you to believe that "most up to date list of NAS-Port-Type Attribute values" would be found in a non-existent update to this document? > > 2. I am assuming that the appropriate 'designated experts' have > approved the content in section 2. Correct; it is my understanding that that was the only review required. > > 3. Now that this is ready for publication, is the third paragraph in > section 1 which says 'Discussion of this draft may be directed to the > authors' still appropriate? Maybe change "draft" to "document"? This is not a WG document. To whom should discussion be directed, except the authors? > > 4. Section 3 is problematic and requires removal or rewriting. I > recommend deleting it and replacing it will appropriate call outs to > RFC 2434 and 3575. > > 4.1 This document was requesting new values from IANA, but section > 3.0 says 'This section explains the criteria to be used by the IANA > for assignment of numbers within namespaces defined within this > document.' Our mistake. > My understanding is that this namespace was not defined within this > document, but within RFC 2434. Your mistake: it's actually defined in RFC 2865. > Discussion of how to manage this > namespace is given in RFC 3575. > > 4.2 Section 3.1 repeats text from RFC 3575 on how this namespace is > to be managed. What happens if RFC 3575 gets updated? Nothing, since this text is fairly obviously in the nature of a justification for this document. > I would suggest > just removing this text from the document and pointing people to RFC > 3575 for rules on how this namespace is to be managed. Fine. > > 4.3 Delete the sentence that says 'The values given have already been > implemented by Cisco Systems.' as it isn't relevant and will quickly > become an obsolete list of implementations. It is extremely relevant as justification for the allocation of exactly the numbers listed (as opposed to the next 5 available numbers, which would be 27-31). > > 5. In section 1, second paragraph and again in section 3.1 second > paragraph, there is an extra space between 'to act as' and 'a request > for allocation'. Fine. > > Sharon Chisholm > Nortel > Ottawa, Ontario > Canada Hope this helps, ~gwz Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by simply listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
