I am okay with that. Regarding the last comment though. It may not be always REQUIRED that the FA operate as a RADIUS Client (or NAS). I think the ultimate solution will allow for a couple of different scenarios. I don't want to be bound to that statement. So I don't know if we need to make changes to this document.
Just as an example, if we use proxy mobile IP4, then the FA does not need to make a AAA dip. Similarly, if we bootstrap MIP type information during access authentication, then the FA does not need to make a AAA dip. -----Original Message----- From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 9:02 AM To: Vijay K. Gurbani Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Avi Lior; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mip4-radius-requirements-03.txt Authors, I would like to take these comments directly as instructions for the RFC Editor. If there's any objection, let me know. Jari Vijay K. Gurbani kirjoitti: > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before > posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-mip4-radius-requirements-03.txt > Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani > Review Date: 15 Jun 2007 > IESG Telechat date: 21 Jun 2007 > > Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational. > Three nits: > > 1) Section 1: s/[RFC3957] all based/[RFC3957], all based > (The comma improves readibility) > > 2) Section 3: s/reqiuired/required > > 3) Section 3.1: In the first and third bullet item, it appears > appropriate that the word "required" be upper-cased to denote its use > as a normative declaration. More so since bullet item two contains > the word "MUST" in normative fashion. I believe that the authors are > making a normative set of declarations for the goals, so it appears > uneven to have a MUST in the second bullet item and not a pair of > REQUIREDs in the other two bullets. > > Thanks, > > - vijay _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
