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

Alejandro Perez Mendez <alex@um.es> Wed, 07 January 2015 08:31 UTC

Return-Path: <alex@um.es>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDBA31A8951 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 00:31:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AqnF-9dhHwFd for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 00:31:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xenon21.um.es (xenon21.um.es [155.54.212.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2EBC1A020A for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 00:31:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xenon21.um.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 282053F8C0; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 09:31:22 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: by antispam in UMU at xenon21.um.es
Received: from xenon21.um.es ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (xenon21.um.es [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 2YKK3MJTP0RR; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 09:31:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [155.54.205.116] (inf-205-116.inf.um.es [155.54.205.116]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: alex) by xenon21.um.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C34A83F857; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 09:31:16 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <54ACEED4.50102@um.es>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 09:31:16 +0100
From: Alejandro Perez Mendez <alex@um.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, Meral Shirazipour <meral.shirazipour@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation.all@tools.ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "<sec-ads@tools.ietf.org>" <sec-ads@tools.ietf.org>
References: <ABCAA4EF18F17B4FB619EA93DEF7939A3307988A@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <54AA63CD.2090900@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <54AA63CD.2090900@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050408090200040307050206"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/qHbgpQzfZHvrinNRQHzxJbWSbMU
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 03:35:59 -0800
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation-09
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 08:31:29 -0000

Hi Benoit,

sure, we will provide an updated version in a few days.

Regards,
Alejandro

El 05/01/15 a las 11:13, Benoit Claise escribió:
> 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
>>
>