Bernie Volz (volz)
2018-04-07 13:35:14 UTC
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 âIA Prefixâ (and IA Address) are used throughout the document. The option is code is IAPREFIX, but the name of the option âIA Prefixâ.The -13 has been published.
Thanks Elwyn for the re-review and comments!
* Bernie
From: Bernie Volz <***@cisco.com>
Date: Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:52 PM
To: Elwyn Davies <***@dial.pipex.com>
Cc: Suresh Krishnan <***@kaloom.com>, General Team <gen-***@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-***@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-***@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Your Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis
Iâll update and put out a -13 over the weekend.
This method MUST be supported by all protocols.
This seems to be rather presumptious!Iâll 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 <***@dial.pipex.com<mailto:***@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/
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 <***@kaloom.com<mailto:***@kaloom.com>>
Date: 06/04/2018 04:15 (GMT+00:00)
To: Elwyn Davies <***@dial.pipex.com<mailto:***@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