Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > >Hi, > >On 05/28/2012 10:01 PM, ssakane wrote: >> All, >> >> I have corresponded all you suggested, and made a new version of the >draft. >> But, I haven't submitted it yet. >> >> Corresponding to Alexey's review, I have merged both client operation >> and server operation into a single section: client and server >operation >> in order for readers to understand the operations easily. >> And, I have improved the description of how a client gets information >> and what kind of information a server has to reply. >> >> However, I am worry that this improvement will probably take this >draft >> to the WG review phase again. >> I would like to ask from you whether my improvement was good way or >not. > >I'd say post the new revision and send a mail to the WG >list summarising the changes. There's no need to note >changes that are just to the layout of the text but if >there are changes to the protocol (e.g. addition of a >new MUST or something) then that's what the WG should >see. And if nobody yells, then we can go ahead. > > >> >> And, I also need an input from you about 4.1. KDC discovery for a >client >> because this behavior should be left to local matter. I am thinking >to >> just remove this diagram and its description. See my response >corresponding >> to Alexey's comment below. > >Removing it seems fine to me, but maybe you want to >be more precise about what the administrator of the >realm MUST do here - just saying "define the method >for the client" isn't really clear, maybe say that >the administrator for the realm MUST pick one as >the preferred method for clients to use. (If that's >what you want to say.) > >Jeff - if any of that is not what you prefer, please >say so, but posting the revision and moving this along >seems right to me.
As long as there are no changes to the protocol (bits or semantics), that seems fine. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
