Thanks Bernie.
I am fine with -13.  
Cheers,Elwyn

Sent from Samsung tablet.
-------- Original message --------From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <v...@cisco.com> 
Date: 07/04/2018  14:35  (GMT+00:00) To: Elwyn Davies <elw...@dial.pipex.com>, 
Suresh Krishnan <sur...@kaloom.com> Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, 
draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis....@ietf.org, dh...@ietf.org Subject: Re: Your 
Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis 


Hi:
 
Regarding:
 
>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 
>removed]
 
The “IA Prefix” (and IA Address) are used throughout the document. The option 
is code is IAPREFIX, but the name of the option “IA Prefix”.
 
The -13 has been published.
 
Thanks Elwyn for the re-review and comments!
 

Bernie
 

From:
Bernie Volz <v...@cisco.com>

Date: Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:52 PM

To: Elwyn Davies <elw...@dial.pipex.com>

Cc: Suresh Krishnan <sur...@kaloom.com>, General Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, 
"draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis....@ietf.org" 
<draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis....@ietf.org>

Subject: Re: Your Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis


 

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> 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 
removed]


 


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



 


Cheers,


Elwyn


 



Sent from Samsung tablet.



 



-------- Original message --------


From: Suresh Krishnan <sur...@kaloom.com>



Date: 06/04/2018 04:15 (GMT+00:00)



To: Elwyn Davies <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



https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-12



The issues and the changes are tracked here



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Yu6-BSV6aWPnhPGxKMPkokSaevjpfzTXe5_98ceoUMU/edit#gid=0



Thanks

Suresh





_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to