[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-shim6-hba-05

[marcelo bagnulo braun]

Hi,

I have already included the changes required by Spencer in the new 06  
version that i sent to the RFC editor for publication

Thanks, regards, marcelo

El 18/01/2008, a las 17:10, Jari Arkko escribió:

Spencer, thanks for pointing this out. The draft has been approved,  
and
it no longer needs to be listed for the next telechat.

I'll let Marcelo deal with your remaining suggestion in AUTH48.

Jari

Spencer Dawkins kirjoitti:
Hi, Russ,

draft-ietf-shim6-hba-05 is on the next telechat agenda and is  
assigned
to me
as a reviewer, but it's showing up as "RFC Editor Queue" now on the
SHIM6 page.

Just for completeness...

Marcelo quickly addressed all the issues that I asked about in my
review of 04. I did have one additional suggestion below, based on
text that Marcelo proposed as a response to my previous review,  
but it
was a nit. If anyone agrees, and still remembers by AUTH48 time, it
could easily be changed then.

Thanks,

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- From: "Spencer Dawkins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "marcelo bagnulo braun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "General Area Review Team" <gen- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jari
Arkko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Geoff Huston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Kurt
Lindqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 6:24 PM
Subject: [Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of
draft-ietf-shim6-hba-04


Hi, Marcelo,

I think we're good on everything except one semi-nit - and I'm  
good on
the
DAD text I questioned, because I didn't have the context about not
performing DAD as a DoS mitigation (just to be explicit about that).

In the remaining text below, I think I was actually asking "who
verifies" -
if it's the receiver, I might suggest s/we may need to verify/the
receiver
may need to verify/, etc.

Thanks, and thanks for a quick reply (while I could remember  
writing the
review!)

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- From: "marcelo bagnulo braun"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Kurt Lindqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Geoff Huston"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Jari Arkko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "General Area
Review
Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-shim6-hba-04


Hi Spencer,

thanks for the review

see comments below...


El 24/11/2007, a las 3:59, Spencer Dawkins escribió:

  For multihoming applications, it is also relevant to verify if a
  given HBA address belongs to a certain HBA set.  An HBA set is
  identified by a CGA Parameter Data structure that contains a  
Multi-
  Prefix Extension.  So, it is then needed to verify if an HBA  
belongs

Spencer: "needed to verify" appears twice in two sentences, and  
I  don't
understand what it means. I'm guessing this is saying  something  
like
"needed to verify", but I'm really in the weeds here  (I'm not sure
who is
doing the verification, either - I can guess,  but I can't figure
that out
from the text)


ok, i have changes it is needed to verify bu we need to verify,
resulting in the following text:

For multihoming applications, it is also relevant to
verify if a given HBA address belongs to a certain HBA set. An HBA
set is
identified by a CGA Parameter Data structure that contains a Multi-
Prefix
Extension. So, we need to verify if a given HBA belongs to the HBA  
set
defined by a CGA Parameter Data Structure. It should be noted that we
may
 need to verify if an HBA belongs to the HBA set defined by the CGA
Parameter
Data Structure of another HBA of the set





_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art








_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art