Jari - Yes. I believe Shwetha took care of these comments in -09 version. Regards Sri
On 9/17/15, 6:27 AM, "Jari Arkko" <[email protected]> wrote: >Thanks for your review, Francis. Authors, you¹ve 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 > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
