> On Feb 1, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Jari Arkko <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your review, Christer!
>
> Authors, can you make a note of the editorials?
Yes, I have agreed to make all of the changes
suggested by Christer.
Thanks -- Kim
>
> Jari
>
> On 01 Feb 2017, at 21:57, Christer Holmberg <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
>> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for
>> the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call
>> comments.
>>
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>
>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>> Document:
>> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-04.txt
>> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
>> Review Date: 01.02.2017
>> IETF LC End Date: 19.01.2017
>> IESG Telechat date: (if known) 02.02.2017
>>
>> Summary: The document is almost ready
>> for publication, but there are some editorial nits that I’d like the authors
>> to address.
>>
>> Major issues: None
>>
>> Minor issues: None
>>
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>
>> INTRODUCTION:
>>
>> Q1: In the first sentence of the Introduction, I suggest to say:
>>
>> “The failover protocol defined in this document provides…”
>>
>> Otherwise it’s a little unclear what failover protocol you are talking about.
>>
>> Q2: In the Introduction, before the first sentence, shouldn’t there
>> be some background text, including some information about the problem that
>> the document solves. I know there is something in the Abstract, but I think
>> there should also be something in the Introduction, before jumping into the
>> solution.
>>
>> Q3: In the Introduction, I suggest adding a reference to the first
>> occurrences of “DHCP service” and “DHCP server”.
>>
>> Q4: In the Introduction, you switch between “This protocol” and “The
>> failover protocol”. Please use consistent terminology. This applies to the
>> document in general.
>>
>> SECTION 4:
>>
>> Q5: In the Abstract and Introduction it is said that DHCPv6 does not
>> provide server redundancy. Then section 4 talks about failover concepts and
>> mechanism.
>>
>> Are those concepts something used for DHCPv6 today, but for some reason do
>> not fulfil the failover protocol requirements?
>>
>> OR, are these general concepts that will be supported by implementing the
>> failover protocol?
>>
>> I think it would be good to have an introduction statement clarifying that.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
