Re: [Captive-portals] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: (with COMMENT)

[Kyle Larose <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alvaro.

Thanks for the review. Responses inline.

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 16:16, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: No Objection
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I have some minor comments:
>
> (1) Please expand CAPPORT.
>
We'll do this.

> (2) §1: s/This document standardizes an architecture/This document describes an
> architecture   This is not a standard track document.

This has been pointed out by other reviewers as well. We'll correct it.

>
> (3) §1: "MAY allow a device to be alerted"   Other parts of the document (even
> in the same section) talk about "devices can be notified" or "informs an
> end-user", while "alert" is not mentioned anywhere else.  Given that "alert"
> has the normative attachment, it would be nice to use consistent language.

Seems reasonable. We'll change the language to be consistent.

>
> (4) §2.1: "E.g....MAY avoid updating..."   s/MAY/may   This is an example, not
> a normative statement.

I agree. I'll change it as part of rephrasing this statement to
address Benjamin's
review comments.

>
> (5) §3.1: "An Identifier MAY be a field...Or, an Identifier MAY be an ephemeral
> property..."   s/MAY/may  These seem to be statements and not normative
> statements.
>

We were trying to say that the identifier was allowed to be one of
those two things, but
I don't see the need for the normative language: what makes a possible
identifier is discussed
later. I'll replace the two 'MAY' occurrences with 'could'.

>

Thanks!

Kyle