Re: draft-ietf-dhc-pktc-kerb-tckt

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

>                     Yes    No-Objection  Discuss *  Abstain  

> Jon Peterson       [   ]     [ X ]       [   ]      [   ]

> I think it would be really helpful if the first sentence of the Abstract
> identified this as a suboption of the "CableLabs Client Configuration (CCC)
> _DHCP_ Option". As it stands, neither the title, Abstract nor the
> Introduction mention DHCP (just the all-too-transient draft-ietf-dhc
> string). If you didn't pause in the terminology section to look up the
> reference for CCC, and see that it in turn has DHCP in the title, you would
> not encounter the term DHCP until the IANA Considerations.

reasonable comment. Indeed, the title could be better too.

Steve Bellovin <smb@research.att.com> writes:

>                     Yes    No-Objection  Discuss *  Abstain  


> Steve Bellovin     [   ]     [ X ]       [   ]      [   ]

> What does "locally persisted" mean?  I think that the proper phrase is 
> "locally cached".

> Section 4 should state that bit values not known to the client MUST be 
> ignored, or it will be very difficult to add new options.

Ditto here too.

Authors have agreed to respin and this will get done.

BTW, Harald and I chatted about whether cablelabs is a real SDO (and
thus, that a standards track document can have a normative reference
to one of their specs). I convinced him, so this document will get
approved after the respin.

Thomas