Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-capport-api-07

[Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the review! I’ve updated our working copy to fix the nits you mention:

https://github.com/capport-wg/api/commit/a9d1dabf8b8b1e4275b98cc5d022d12bece97e70

> On May 3, 2020, at 9:29 PM, Brian Carpenter via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-capport-api-07.html
> 
> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-capport-api-07
> 
> 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
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-capport-api-07.html
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review Date: 2020-05-04
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-05-11
> IESG Telechat date:  
> 
> Summary: Ready (almost...)
> --------
> 
> Minor Issue:
> ------------
> 
>>     If the client is captive (i.e. captive=true),
>>     it can still be allowed enough access for it to perform server
>>     authentication Section 4.1.
> 
> What does "can" mean? MAY or perhaps SHOULD? Is this a local policy decision?

Changed this to “will”. This does not need to be a normative claim here, as it is simply describing what the server deployment will do based on the referenced section.
> 
> Nit:
> ----
> 
>>     If the client is captive (i.e. captive=true),
>>     it can still be allowed enough access for it to perform server
>>     authentication Section 4.1.
> 
> Missing parentheses around "Section 4.1"?

Fixed!

Best,
Tommy