Thanks for your review, Francis. Authors, you’ve taken these notes into account?
Jari On 03 Jun 2015, at 07:55, Francis Dupont <[email protected]> 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-dhc-access-network-identifier-08.txt > Reviewer: Francis Dupont > Review Date: 20150601 > IETF LC End Date: 20150609 > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > Summary: Ready > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > - ToC page 2 and 10 page 16: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments > (BTW you wrote behavior, not behaviour, so please keep US spelling :-) > > - 3 page 5: I was looking for the RFC 2119 reference there but > it was just after the Abstract. So I went to the RFC-Editor webpages > to read what the last RFC Style Guide says: the requirement language > section is supposed to be in the body (vs headers) after the introduction > (i.e., exactly where I expected to find it :-). > Note it doesn't really matter and if something needs to be fixed it is > more likely the tool you used... > > - 4.3.1 page 7: Identifier[ANI]. > ^ insert a space here > > - 4.4.2 page 10: Ex: -> e.g., > > - 4.4.2 page 10: the DNS encoding is a bit ambiguous because there are > (too) many things in RFC 1035. I think you mean the wire format (vs > text format) but perhaps it should be better to be more accurate in > the wording? > > - 7 page 14 (twice): must -> MUST. > > - 7 page 14: I suggest to change: > ... When generating a response, the server echoes > back Relay Agent Information options > > by > > ... When generating a response, the server SHALL > echo back Relay Agent Information options > > - 9 page 15: And, [RFC3118] and [RFC3315] -> [RFC3118] and [RFC3315] > > - 9 page 15: draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-07.txt is under IESG review, > perhaps will be published before your document, and obsoletes > a part of the argument (unfortunately not the "in active use" > even the day before my review I finished the code of a secure DHCPv6 > prototype :-). > > - authors' addresses pages 17 and 18: no uniformity in the case of > country names (The UPU says upper case but this doesn't apply to > I-Ds/RFCs... The RFC-Editor will fix addresses). > > Regards > > [email protected] > > PS for native English speakers: is unsecure proper English? My speller > says insecure and unsecured are but not unsecure. > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
