On Aug 13, 2018, at 8:24 PM, Tim Evens <[email protected]> wrote: > Minor issues: > > Nits/editorial comments: > Abstract contains "Section 3.1" which becomes an HTML reference > link. This incorrectly links to the current draft section 3.1, > not the intended RFC5176 Section 3.1. This is repeated in > the introduction.
Fixed. > IMO, that last sentence would read better with "corrects the omission" > instead of "that." It's been reworded to be clearer over all. > Code points are not summarized in IANA Considerations section. Fixed. > The references are not formatted per RFC7322. > > The HTML rendering of Section 2.2 CoA Processing does not render > the RFC5176 link correctly. Bracketed references normally are followed > by some text. I'll fix that. > IMO, considering this draft updates 5176, I feel it would be better for the > problem statement to be clearer on updates and clarifications. Perhaps you could suggest text? My understanding is that the problem statement is fairly clear: * CoA proxying is currently impossible And the solution: * define a method for doing CoA proxying > In section 3.3, while humorous, I suggest dropping "on the planet." Done. And clarified substantially as a result of IESG feedback. > Section 6 Security Considerations link for Section 11 of RFC6929 is > missing keyword "of." This results in two links instead of the correct > link. Fixed. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
