Tim, thanks for your review. Alan, thanks for your responses. I have entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa > On Aug 14, 2018, at 4:00 PM, Alan DeKok <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
