I’ll update and put out a -13 over the weekend.

s20.3, para 2:
>  This method MUST be supported by all protocols.
This seems to be rather presumptious!

I’ll fix this as it is supposed to ne all Authentication option protocols.

- Bernie (from iPad)

On Apr 6, 2018, at 7:29 PM, Elwyn Davies 
<elw...@dial.pipex.com<mailto:elw...@dial.pipex.com>> wrote:

Hi, Suresh and draft authors.

Sorry for my inaction on checking the updates.

I have now run through the changes (phew!) and think you are almost good to go. 
There are a couple of minor typos and a query about RFC 8213.  Otherwise, 
thanks for addressing most of my issues/suggestions - I am gennerally happy 
with the outcome.

Last few thoughts:

s18.1: s/facility/facilitate/

s19.4, next to last para: s/insert an option to/insert an option into/

s20.3, para 2:
>  This method MUST be supported by all protocols.
This seems to be rather presumptious!

s20.3, para 3: s/a message with RDM field/a message with the RDM field/

s21.22, 9th para after Table 36: s/The client SHOULD NOT send an IA Prefix 
option with 0/The client SHOULD NOT send an IAPrefix option with 0/ [space 

s20.1/s27.2:  Keeping RFC 8213 as a separate item is fair enough, but I still 
feel it should be normative


Sent from Samsung tablet.

-------- Original message --------
From: Suresh Krishnan <sur...@kaloom.com<mailto:sur...@kaloom.com>>
Date: 06/04/2018 04:15 (GMT+00:00)
To: Elwyn Davies <elw...@dial.pipex.com<mailto:elw...@dial.pipex.com>>
Subject: Your Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis

Hi Elwyn,
  As I spoke to you during IETF week, the authors of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis 
have addressed your review comments with text changes as well as explanations 
in case there are no text changes. Can you take a quick look at the latest rev 
to see if there are any open issues? I would like to get this draft approved by 
the end of this week. The latest draft is here


The issues and the changes are tracked here



Gen-art mailing list

Reply via email to