Re: Review of draft-ietf-radext-design-00.txt

[Alan DeKok <aland@nitros9.org>]

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> There are some extra spaces in the boilerplate above.  Also, the
> document is a BCP, not Standards Track.

  Thanks.

> The material on type 26 attribute translation has been removed, no?

  Yes.

> Section 2.1.1
...
> Note the alignment problem in the above entries.

  Extraneous tab.  Fixed.

> Section 2.1.2
> 
> Given the limitations of the existing tagging schemes, is there a
> recommendation to be made (e.g. don't use the existing tagging schemes
> for new attributes?)

  Suggested text:

   New attributes SHOULD NOT use this tagging method due to the above
   limitations.  New attributes SHOULD use the grouping method described
   in [EXTEN].

  i.e. the extended attributes document.

> Section 2.2
...
> You need to add a space between this paragraph and the previous figure.

  Fixed.

> Section 3
...
> I think you're referring to the extension draft, no?  If so, you might
> as well reference it non-normatively, such as by saying  "Extensions to
> the RADIUS data model such as [EXTEN] make it possible to minimize the
> use of complex attributes."

  Yes.  I'll add that text.

> Section 3.1
...
> I think there is a formatting issue here.

  Fixed.

> 4.  IANA Considerations
...
> Given that type 26 translation is not included any more, I think you can
> instead say:
> 
> "   This draft requires no action by IANA."

  Added, thanks.

> Appendices
> 
> I think that this document needs a "checklist" that a reviewer can go
> through to look for issues.  You might consider including this as
> Appendix A and moving the existing Appendix A to Appendix B.

  Yes.  I'll address the checklist in a separate message.

  Alan DeKok.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>