Hi Ben, Thank you for considering, I read it from the eyes of someone new to the document, and perhaps ref [MS-SFU] caused the doubts. I agree that for people following the work this is probably obvious:) Since it is a Standards document I think it will clarify a lot if the same term is used across the document; you are probably a better judge on that.
Best, Meral > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 6:57 PM > To: Meral Shirazipour > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf- > [email protected] > Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-kitten-cammac-04 > > Hi Meral, > > Thank you for the review. > > On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Meral Shirazipour wrote: > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > [Page 3] 2nd and 3rd paragraph: The word "service" is used to > > designate both the proxy-service and the second backend > > "application-service" as per [MS-SFU]. This may confuse the reader at first > read. > > Suggestion would be to use "proxy-service" and "application-service". > > [Page 8] after point "2." would also benefit from clearer use of these > > terms. > > From the point of view of the Kerberos protocol, there is only one service > here, so I think it is appropriate to use only a single term. > > > [Page 8], last paragraph, it was not clear to me if "service principal" > > is the "application service"? > > "service principal name" is the identifier used to represent the application > service within the Kerberos protocol, yes. > > I am not sure if I should recommend that the authors make any changes to > reduce the potential for confusion. > > -Ben Kaduk _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
