Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-04

Thanks for the review Christer. And thanks for taking care of this quickly Kim.

Regards
Suresh

> On Feb 1, 2017, at 11:43 PM, kkinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for your review, Christer!
>> 
>> Authors, can you make a note of the editorials?
> 
> 	Yes, I have agreed to make all of the changes
> 	suggested by Christer. 
> 
> 	Thanks -- Kim
>> 
>> Jari
>> 
>> On 01 Feb 2017, at 21:57, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
>>> 
>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>> 
>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>> 
>>> Document:                                      draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-04.txt
>>> Reviewer:                                        Christer Holmberg
>>> Review Date:                                  01.02.2017
>>> IETF LC End Date:                          19.01.2017
>>> IESG Telechat date: (if known)    02.02.2017
>>> 
>>> Summary:                                       The document is almost ready for publication, but there are some editorial nits that I’d like the authors to address.
>>> 
>>> Major issues:                                 None
>>> 
>>> Minor issues:                                 None
>>> 
>>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>> 
>>> INTRODUCTION:
>>> 
>>> Q1:        In the first sentence of the Introduction, I suggest to say:
>>> 
>>> “The failover protocol defined in this document provides…”
>>> 
>>> Otherwise it’s a little unclear what failover protocol you are talking about.
>>> 
>>> Q2:        In the Introduction, before the first sentence, shouldn’t there be some background text, including some information about the problem that the document solves. I know there is something in the Abstract, but I think there should also be something in the Introduction, before jumping into the solution.
>>> 
>>> Q3:        In the Introduction, I suggest adding a reference to the first occurrences of “DHCP service” and “DHCP server”.
>>> 
>>> Q4:        In the Introduction, you switch between “This protocol” and “The failover protocol”. Please use consistent terminology. This applies to the document in general.
>>> 
>>> SECTION 4:
>>> 
>>> Q5:        In the Abstract and Introduction it is said that DHCPv6 does not provide server redundancy. Then section 4 talks about failover concepts and mechanism.
>>> 
>>> Are those concepts something used for DHCPv6 today, but for some reason do not fulfil the failover protocol requirements?
>>> 
>>> OR, are these general concepts that will be supported by implementing the failover protocol?
>>> 
>>> I think it would be good to have an introduction statement clarifying that.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gen-art mailing list
>>> Gen-art@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-04

Attachment: smime.p7s