RE: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mip4-radius-requirements-03.txt

I am okay with that.

Regarding the last comment though.  It may not be always REQUIRED that
the FA operate as a RADIUS Client (or NAS).  I think the ultimate
solution will allow for a couple of different scenarios.  I don't want
to be bound to that statement. So I don't know if we need to make
changes to this document. 

Just as an example, if we use proxy mobile IP4, then the FA does not
need to make a AAA dip.  Similarly, if we bootstrap MIP type information
during access authentication, then the FA does not need to make a AAA
dip.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net] 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 9:02 AM
To: Vijay K. Gurbani
Cc: mnakhjiri@huawei.com; kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com; Avi Lior;
kleung@cisco.com; gen-art@ietf.org; henrik@levkowetz.com;
mccap@petoni.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of
draft-ietf-mip4-radius-requirements-03.txt

Authors, I would like to take these comments directly as instructions
for the RFC Editor. If there's any objection, let me know.

Jari

Vijay K. Gurbani kirjoitti:
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) 
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see 
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
>
> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before 
> posting a new version of the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-mip4-radius-requirements-03.txt
> Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
> Review Date: 15 Jun 2007
> IESG Telechat date: 21 Jun 2007
>
> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational.
> Three nits:
>
> 1) Section 1: s/[RFC3957] all based/[RFC3957], all based
>    (The comma improves readibility)
>
> 2) Section 3: s/reqiuired/required
>
> 3) Section 3.1: In the first and third bullet item, it appears  
> appropriate that the word "required" be upper-cased to denote its  use

> as a normative declaration.  More so since bullet item two  contains 
> the word "MUST" in normative fashion.  I believe that  the authors are

> making a normative set of declarations for the  goals, so it appears 
> uneven to have a MUST in the second bullet  item and not a pair of 
> REQUIREDs in the other two bullets.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - vijay

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art