Hi Robert, We seem to have missed this change. Will fix it in the next rev.
Regards Sri On 9/24/13 10:57 AM, "Robert Sparks" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Suresh - > >It doesn't look like any of these changes made it into -08? > >RjS > >On 8/22/13 4:51 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: >> On 8/22/13 4:06 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: >>> Hi Robert, >>> Thanks a lot for the review. We will include the changes in the next >>> revision we submit. Please see proposed changes inline. >>> >>> On 08/22/2013 02:05 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: >>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >>>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >>>> >>>> <http://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-netext-update-notifications-07 >>>> Reviewer: Robert Sparks >>>> Review Date: 2013-08-22 >>>> IETF LC End Date: 2013-08-29 >>>> IESG Telechat date: not scheduled >>>> >>>> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Proposed Standard >>>> >>>> I had to read through this text several times to convince myself >>>> implementers could figure out what order they were required to take >>>> steps in vs where they had flexibility: >>>> >>>> o Upon accepting the Update Notification message, the mobile >>>> access >>>> gateway MUST process the message and perform the actions >>>> based on >>>> the Notification Reason. >>>> * If the (A) flag in the message is set to a value of (1), the >>>> mobile access gateway MUST first send an Update Notification >>>> Acknowledgement message and set the status code field >>>> according >>>> to the result of processing the Update Notification message. >>>> >>>> In particular, it's not immediately obvious if there is tension >>>>between >>>> that "MUST first" and having "the result of processing" available. >>>> Please consider rewording to make it clearer that this "result of >>>> processing" is not intended to include waiting for the result of some >>>> action processing this notification message might trigger. >>> I think we can lose the word first without losing anything. Does the >>> following rewording work for you? >> Yes, thanks! >>> >>> OLD: >>> If the (A) flag in the message is set to a value of (1), the mobile >>> access gateway MUST first send an Update Notification Acknowledgement >>> message and set the status code field according to the result of >>> processing the Update Notification message. >>> >>> NEW: >>> If the (A) flag in the message is set to a value of (1), the mobile >>> access gateway MUST send an Update Notification Acknowledgement message >>> with the status code field set based on the result of processing the >>> Update Notification message. >>> >>>> It might help readers understand the intended usual case >>>>retransmission >>>> mechanics if the expected default values listed in section 7 were >>>> called >>>> out earlier in the document. >>> Sure. Will call out the defaults at first use. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Suresh >>> >> > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
