Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-14.txt

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>Hi,
>
>On 05/28/2012 10:01 PM, ssakane wrote:
>> All,
>> 
>> I have corresponded all you suggested, and made a new version of the
>draft.
>> But, I haven't submitted it yet.
>> 
>> Corresponding to Alexey's review, I have merged both client operation
>> and server operation into a single section: client and server
>operation
>> in order for readers to understand the operations easily.
>> And, I have improved the description of how a client gets information
>> and what kind of information a server has to reply.
>> 
>> However, I am worry that this improvement will probably take this
>draft
>> to the WG review phase again.
>> I would like to ask from you whether my improvement was good way or
>not.
>
>I'd say post the new revision and send a mail to the WG
>list summarising the changes. There's no need to note
>changes that are just to the layout of the text but if
>there are changes to the protocol (e.g. addition of a
>new MUST or something) then that's what the WG should
>see. And if nobody yells, then we can go ahead.
>
>
>> 
>> And, I also need an input from you about 4.1. KDC discovery for a
>client
>> because this behavior should be left to local matter.  I am thinking
>to
>> just remove this diagram and its description.  See my response
>corresponding
>> to Alexey's comment below.
>
>Removing it seems fine to me, but maybe you want to
>be more precise about what the administrator of the
>realm MUST do here - just saying "define the method
>for the client" isn't really clear, maybe say that
>the administrator for the realm MUST pick one as
>the preferred method for clients to use. (If that's
>what you want to say.)
>
>Jeff - if any of that is not what you prefer, please
>say so, but posting the revision and moving this along
>seems right to me.

As long as there are no changes to the protocol (bits or semantics), that seems fine.