IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06

<teemu.savolainen@nokia.com> Tue, 04 October 2011 07:01 UTC

Return-Path: <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 482FE21F8D1C for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 00:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.115
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.115 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.484, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oiat6Jiy2kmG for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 00:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-da01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9098C21F8CFE for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 00:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh102.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.23]) by mgw-da01.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p94740DV001874; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:04:31 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:04:10 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-004.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.59) by NOK-AM1MHUB-03.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:04:10 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-037.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.7.8]) by 008-AM1MMR1-004.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.59]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:04:10 +0200
From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com
To: wassim.haddad@ericsson.com, gen-art@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06
Thread-Index: AQHMgly18qmK5wgN0kWtVkeW9eFm8ZVrwRrw
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 07:04:10 +0000
Message-ID: <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE4430969620377653A@008-AM1MPN1-037.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <8028C315-7FD8-4FE7-B050-C82527B6D642@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <8028C315-7FD8-4FE7-B050-C82527B6D642@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-tituslabs-classifications-30: TLPropertyRoot=Nokia; Confidentiality=Company Confidential; Project=None;
x-titus-version: 3.3.8.1
x-headerinfofordlp: None
x-tituslabs-classificationhash-30: VgNFIFU9Hx+/nZJb9Kg7IjeA9XgioPnJMNHGpMPu8ET/DXWVObrXSXanEGtcA8mZaGCezEnZbD3MaoD/arJPBXRzl+BiE5zK+vcyGa6wCO087BMg4t1pxj+ixbaEg2udek3YDXlJzhtsQ0IIN92BQJv7xl6CQhOBc/9iO23z5ybNaK98RMS3uKceNtMwy+rXmfx6DGpjMt26qgZ9oHoR5lChDHxdomzuHttmltomn+iWWtfpQO0JDYQb5GxbyiZ/JrBO1eX888OnRRaDvr5luA==
x-originating-ip: [10.162.78.119]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00F4_01CC827C.F413B6B0"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Oct 2011 07:04:10.0499 (UTC) FILETIME=[D0E5B530:01CC8263]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 05:40:03 -0700
Cc: draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih@tools.ietf.org, dthaler@microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 07:01:35 -0000

Than you Wassim for your review.

> Minor issues: IMHO, it makes sense to better clarify the connection to the
> two RFCs 2767 and 3338 as the draft states that it "obsoletes" them in the
> abstract, "updates" them in the Introduction, is a "direct update to and
> directly derivative" from them (sub-section 1.1), then "combines and
> obsoletes" them in section 8.

This obsoletes, hence we could maybe state in the 1.1 acknowledgement
section as:
"This document is a derivative from ..." (and not say update/obsolete in
that section)

In essence this document copy-pastes a lot of content from those RFCs, and
then makes quite some changes.

Best regards,

	Teemu

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email