|
Alan,
I have not
seen any response from you to the issues raised in the DISCUSS and COMMENT made
by the different AD's. The IESG telechat is scheduled for today at 11:30AM ET.
Are you on line and preparing answers to the issues raised?
Thanks and
Regards,
Dan
> From: housley@vigilsec.com
> To:
iesg@ietf.org
> CC: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr;
radext-chairs@tools.ietf.org;
draft-ietf-radext-status-server@tools.ietf.org
> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010
18:22:24 -0700
> Subject: COMMENT: draft-ietf-radext-status-server
>
> Comment:
>
> Please consider the comments from
the Gen-ART Review by Francis Dupont:
>
> - Abstract page 2:
there is an explicit reference to a RFC, this is in
> general forbidden
but IMHO we are here in the allowed exception case.
>
> - 2.1.1
page 8: a servers policy -> a server policy
>
> - 3 page 10
(twice): etc. -> etc., ???
>
> - 4.2 page 13: adminstrators
-> administrators
>
> - 4.2 page 15 (twice): e.g. ->
e.g.,
>
> - 4.3 page 16: modelled -> modeled
>
>
- 4.3 page 16: usually the hysteresis against flapping tries to keep
>
the connection (i.e., failover after 3 missed responses), here it is
>
the opposite. IMHO it is very aggressive but it is how RFC 3539 works
>
so I have no concern about it.
>
> - 4.5 page 16: Proxyhas ->
Proxy has
>
> - 4.5 page 17: cannot, -> cannot
>
> - 4.5 page 18: i.e. -> i.e.,
>
> - 5 page 19:
EAP-MEssage -> EAP-Message
>
> - 8 page 23: synthesise ->
synthesize
>
> - 8 page 23: in "the suggestion of [RFC5080]
Section 2.2.2, which suggests"
> suggests -> proposes
>
> - 8 page 23: configurably is not in my dict?
>
> - 9.2
page 23: IMHO the RFC2119 reference should be moved to normative
>
references section (perhaps others too?)
>
> - Authors' Addresses
-> Author's Address
>
|