[Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E2

All,

The IESG Comment is as follows:

E2 - A number of editorial problems have been detected when running
idnits. Please fix them:

------------------

  Checking nits according to
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

  == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed
     Standard

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

  == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST' is not an
accepted
     usage according to RFC 2119.  Please use 'MUST NOT' (if that is
what you
     mean).

     Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph:

     Unless otherwise specified, a control message that lists a set of
     supported (or expected) message elements MUST not expect the
message
     elements to be in any specific order.  The sender MAY include the
message
     elements in any order.  Unless otherwise noted, one message element
of
     each type is present in a given control message.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'ChangeCipherSpec' is mentioned on line 1456,
but not
     defined
'[ChangeCipherSpec]...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2132' is defined on line 6048, but no
explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC2132]  Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP
Vendo...'

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3280 (Obsoleted by RFC 5280)

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226)

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1883 (Obsoleted by RFC 2460)

  -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of 
     draft-calhoun-dhc-capwap-ac-option is -00, but you're referring to
-02.

  -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref.
     'I-D.calhoun-dhc-capwap-ac-option'  (No intended status found in
state
     file of draft-calhoun-dhc-capwap-ac-option)

  == Outdated reference: draft-housley-aaa-key-mgmt has been published
as RFC
     4962
----------------------------

I have made the necessary changes to address all of the issues.

PatC
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap