Hi Joe, Thank you for the answer. Fine with me, if the document shepherd or AD approve, I would still suggest adding a comment in the abstract or intro mentioning that RFC4851 text is reused.
Best, Meral From: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 15:55 To: Meral Shirazipour Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method-07 Hi Meral, Thanks for your review, comments inline below. Cheers, Joe On Jul 30, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Meral Shirazipour <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ athttp://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method-07 Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour Review Date: 2013-07-30 IETF LC End Date: 2013-07-30 IESG Telechat date: NA Summary: This draft is almost ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have some comments. Nits/editorial comments: Many sections of the document are a direct copy paste of RFC4851(EAP-FAST) with a minor change: "EAP-FAST"->"TEAP". Since RFC4851 is mentioned as being well adopted, is there a reason why it has not been used as reference point and then only mention the diffs in more detail? (for the sections concerned). Appendix B is useful, but the above suggestion could have made the document a lot shorter and easier to understand by people already familiar with EAP-FAST. Unless this draft is to replace RFC4851? In which case the abstract should mention this. e.g. [Page 20], Section 3.7 Fragmentation, is a copy of RFC4851's Section 3.7 with "EAP-FAST"->"TEAP". Why not use RFC4851's Fragmentation proposal as a reference point and just mention what is different (e.g. nothing but the EAP-Type in this case). [Joe] RFC 4851 is informational and making normative reference to it would be a downref. We felt it would be better to include the complete text in the standards track document and remove any normative dependency on the information document. Nits: [Page 6], Section 1.2, reference [RFC5077] appears twice. [Page 21], section 3.8, paragraph 2, "which the the peer"--typo-->remove extra "the" [Page 24], Section 3.8.4, paragraph 2, "succ;essfully"--typo-->"successfully" [Page 56], line 3, "Note: Peer's are"---->"Peers" [Page 73], Section 7.6, "is remoted"--typo-->"is remote" [Joe] OK Best Regards, Meral --- Meral Shirazipour Ericsson Research www.ericsson.com<http://www.ericsson.com/>
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
