Hi, Many thanks. Looks good to me. Best Regards, Meral
From: Alejandro Perez Mendez [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 1:02 AM To: Meral Shirazipour; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation-09 Dear Meral, thank you for the review. We have posted a new version (-10) addressing your comments. Please, see inline for more details. 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-radext-radius-fragmentation-09 Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour Review Date: 2014-12-25 IETF LC End Date: 2014-12-25 IESG Telechat date: NA Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Experimental RFC but I have some comments. Minor issues: -Not sure about this, [page 1] says Updates: 2865, 6158, 6929 (if approved). Can an experimental RFC update non-experimental RFCs? I read the note in Section 12.1. Just raising the question. Yes, we had suppport from the IESG. This is what Barry Leib said: I think it absolutely makes sense (in the right circumstances) for an Experimental spec to "update" a Standards Track document: it's reasonable to consider something as an experimental update. In those cases, I think it's very important for the Experimental document to be very clear about what the update is, and that it's experimental. Nits/editorial comments: -[Page 4], Intro, it would be good to remind the reader on why the 4096 octet limit was put in place initially and what has changed since. We've added some clarifying text. -[Page 4], Section 1, "limitation mean that"--->"limitation means that" -[Page 4], "this approach does entirely solve"---> should it be "does not" ? -[Page 5], "the set up"--->"the setup" -[Page 5], "to implement the draft"--->"to implement the RFC" -[Page 6], "NOT be used to exchange more than 100K of data", not clear what 100K is here? bytes? why? -[Page 7], "more than 4K of data", as above, not clear what 4K is? -[Page 9], "the RADIUS and COA"-->"CoA" instead of "COA" -[Page 14],"other then Additional-Authorization."--->"other than ..." -[Page 14],"Compliant RADIUS Chlient"-->"...client" -[Page 14],"if tey had"--->"if they had" -[Page 27], "into a even"--->"into an even" Thanks, we have fixed these issues. -Other: * Not sure if this RFC should reference to draft-ietf-radext-bigger-packets as another alternative to look for? Good point. We've added a paragraph at the end of the introduction section. * Please spell at first use: EAP, NAS, PKI, SAML,ABFAB Done. *chunk/chunking, would it be better to use fragment/fragmenting/fragmentation instead ? or mention the two terms are used interchangeably. We chose chunk precisely to avoid the term "fragment", which is already used to refer to a portion of a "Long Extended Type" attribute from RFC6929. This distinction is required. Best regards, Alejandro 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
