Re: [Gen-art] [netext] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-07

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

On 8/22/13 4:06 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>    Thanks a lot for the review. We will include the changes in the next
> revision we submit. Please see proposed changes inline.
>
> On 08/22/2013 02:05 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> 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-netext-update-notifications-07
>> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
>> Review Date: 2013-08-22
>> IETF LC End Date: 2013-08-29
>> IESG Telechat date: not scheduled
>>
>> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Proposed Standard
>>
>> I had to read through this text several times to convince myself
>> implementers could figure out what order they were required to take
>> steps in vs where they had flexibility:
>>
>>     o  Upon accepting the Update Notification message, the mobile access
>>        gateway MUST process the message and perform the actions based on
>>        the Notification Reason.
>>        *  If the (A) flag in the message is set to a value of (1), the
>>           mobile access gateway MUST first send an Update Notification
>>           Acknowledgement message and set the status code field according
>>           to the result of processing the Update Notification message.
>>
>> In particular, it's not immediately obvious if there is tension between
>> that "MUST first" and having "the result of processing" available.
>> Please consider rewording to make it clearer that this "result of
>> processing" is not intended to include waiting for the result of some
>> action processing this notification message might trigger.
> I think we can lose the word first without losing anything. Does the
> following rewording work for you?
Yes, thanks!
>
> OLD:
> If the (A) flag in the message is set to a value of (1), the mobile
> access gateway MUST first send an Update Notification Acknowledgement
> message and set the status code field according to the result of
> processing the Update Notification message.
>
> NEW:
> If the (A) flag in the message is set to a value of (1), the mobile
> access gateway MUST send an Update Notification Acknowledgement message
> with the status code field set based on the result of processing the
> Update Notification message.
>
>> It might help readers understand the intended usual case retransmission
>> mechanics if the expected default values listed in section 7 were called
>> out earlier in the document.
> Sure. Will call out the defaults at first use.
>
> Thanks
> Suresh
>