[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-08.txt
Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Wed, 03 June 2015 14:55 UTC
Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE4B1A89EB for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 07:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.337
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dIRcgVnBXTDr for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 07:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71B0B1A89C7 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 07:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id t53EtFBs088831; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 16:55:15 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201506031455.t53EtFBs088831@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 16:55:15 +0200
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/eqiaOrk9AXB_m1ehfiUKEaDkHfU>
Cc: draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-08.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 14:55:29 -0000
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-08.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 20150601 IETF LC End Date: 20150609 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: - ToC page 2 and 10 page 16: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments (BTW you wrote behavior, not behaviour, so please keep US spelling :-) - 3 page 5: I was looking for the RFC 2119 reference there but it was just after the Abstract. So I went to the RFC-Editor webpages to read what the last RFC Style Guide says: the requirement language section is supposed to be in the body (vs headers) after the introduction (i.e., exactly where I expected to find it :-). Note it doesn't really matter and if something needs to be fixed it is more likely the tool you used... - 4.3.1 page 7: Identifier[ANI]. ^ insert a space here - 4.4.2 page 10: Ex: -> e.g., - 4.4.2 page 10: the DNS encoding is a bit ambiguous because there are (too) many things in RFC 1035. I think you mean the wire format (vs text format) but perhaps it should be better to be more accurate in the wording? - 7 page 14 (twice): must -> MUST. - 7 page 14: I suggest to change: ... When generating a response, the server echoes back Relay Agent Information options by ... When generating a response, the server SHALL echo back Relay Agent Information options - 9 page 15: And, [RFC3118] and [RFC3315] -> [RFC3118] and [RFC3315] - 9 page 15: draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-07.txt is under IESG review, perhaps will be published before your document, and obsoletes a part of the argument (unfortunately not the "in active use" even the day before my review I finished the code of a secure DHCPv6 prototype :-). - authors' addresses pages 17 and 18: no uniformity in the case of country names (The UPU says upper case but this doesn't apply to I-Ds/RFCs... The RFC-Editor will fix addresses). Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr PS for native English speakers: is unsecure proper English? My speller says insecure and unsecured are but not unsecure.
- [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-dhc-access-network… Francis Dupont
- [Gen-art] Insecure vs Unsecure [was Re: review of… Elwyn Davies
- Re: [Gen-art] Insecure vs Unsecure [was Re: revie… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-dhc-access-net… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-dhc-access-net… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)