Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation-09

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Dear draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation authors,

Can you please address the GEN-ART review.

Regards, Benoit
>
> 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-radext-radius-fragmentation-09
>
> Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
>
> Review Date: 2014-12-25
>
> IETF LC End Date:  2014-12-25
>
> IESG Telechat date: NA
>
> Summary:
>
> This draft is ready to be published as Experimental RFC but I have 
> some comments.
>
> Minor issues:
>
> -Not sure about this, [page 1] says Updates: 2865, 6158, 6929 (if 
> approved). Can an experimental RFC update non-experimental RFCs?
>
> I read the note in Section 12.1. Just raising the question.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> -[Page 4], Intro, it would be good to remind the reader on why the 
> 4096 octet limit was put in place initially and what has changed since.
>
> -[Page 4], Section 1, "limitation mean that"--->"limitation means that"
>
> -[Page 4], "this approach does entirely solve"---> should it be "does 
> not" ?
>
> -[Page 5], "the set up"--->"the setup"
>
> -[Page 5], "to implement the draft"--->"to implement the RFC"
>
> -[Page 6], "NOT be used to exchange more than 100K of data", not clear 
> what 100K is here? bytes? why?
>
> -[Page 7], "more than 4K of data", as above, not clear what 4K is?
>
> -[Page 9], "the RADIUS and COA"-->"CoA" instead of "COA"
>
> -[Page 14],"other then Additional-Authorization."--->"other than ..."
>
> -[Page 14],"CompliantRADIUS Chlient"-->"...client"
>
> -[Page 14],"if tey had"--->"if they had"
>
> -[Page 27], "into a even"--->"into an even"
>
> -Other:
>
> * Not sure if this RFC should reference to 
> draft-ietf-radext-bigger-packets as another alternative to look for?
>
> * Please spell at first use: EAP, NAS, PKI, SAML,ABFAB
>
> *chunk/chunking, would it be better to use 
> fragment/fragmenting/fragmentation instead ? or mention the two terms 
> are used interchangeably.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Meral
>
> ---
>
> Meral Shirazipour
>
> Ericsson
>
> Research
>
> www.ericsson.com
>