Thanks for the review Christer. And thanks for taking care of this quickly Kim.
Regards Suresh > On Feb 1, 2017, at 11:43 PM, kkinnear <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
