IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [HOKEY] [hokey] #5: Rework last sentence in 1st paragraph of section 3.

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Sat, 08 October 2011 02:45 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: hokey@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hokey@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C3B21F8B84 for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.950, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DLigj6nf4VJH for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC8B21F8564 for <hokey@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LSQ00CKP7TNZW@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for hokey@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2011 10:48:59 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LSQ001IC7TNGU@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for hokey@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2011 10:48:59 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml203-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AEC63578; Sat, 08 Oct 2011 10:48:58 +0800
Received: from SZXEML409-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.136) by szxeml203-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Sat, 08 Oct 2011 10:48:50 +0800
Received: from w53375q (10.138.41.130) by szxeml409-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.136) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Sat, 08 Oct 2011 10:48:51 +0800
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 10:48:50 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.130]
To: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
Message-id: <5417C30855754D1EB8BE9943CEAA7551@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <058.70e4e0fa30c76678b573b25dbde6b43c@trac.tools.ietf.org> <95351BFF40BC45439A6A8E719A805CF3@china.huawei.com> <4E8ACE39.6000602@gmail.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-hokey-arch-design@tools.ietf.org, hokey@ietf.org, gwz@net-zen.net
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] [hokey] #5: Rework last sentence in 1st paragraph of section 3.
X-BeenThere: hokey@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: HOKEY WG Mailing List <hokey.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hokey>, <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hokey>
List-Post: <mailto:hokey@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey>, <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 02:45:48 -0000

Hi:
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@gmail.com>
To: "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Cc: <hokey@ietf.org>; <draft-ietf-hokey-arch-design@tools.ietf.org>; <gwz@net-zen.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] [hokey] #5: Rework last sentence in 1st paragraph of section 3.


> On 9/28/2011 10:26 AM, Qin Wu wrote:
> 
>>> #5: Rework last sentence in 1st paragraph of section 3.
>>>
>>> The first paragraph of section 3 says:
>>>
>>>    This section investigates the design goals for the HOKEY
>>>    architecture.  These include reducing the signaling overhead for
>>>    re-authentication and early authentication, integrating local
>>>    domain name discovery, and improving deployment scalability.
>>>    These goals supplement the discussion in [RFC5169].
>>>
>>> How should the last sentence be reworked?
>> 
>> [Qin]: I don't see this is not a major issue. 
> 
> Me, neither ;-).  The severity of Major was user error.
> 
>> If more clarity is requested,
>> I suggest to change it into
>> "
>> These goals supplement the goal discussion in the section 4 of [RFC5169].
>> "
> 
> Sounds good, but how about a slightly more polished version: "These goals
> supplement those discussed in Section 4 of RFC 5169 [RFC5169]."?

[Qin]: Your proposal is better.

> ...
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email