Re: [radext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-05
Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Tue, 14 August 2018 20:00 UTC
Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16786130EB9; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 13:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 VBZrLHyp3Jpk; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 13:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B30130EC7; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 13:00:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.20.32] (CPEf4cc55220745-CM64777ddff610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [173.32.191.82]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E5FD62; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 20:00:20 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: [radext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-05
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <153420629857.24982.2722057727598250846@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 16:00:18 -0400
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, radext@ietf.org, draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3333032E-47BC-4AF9-97D5-F02F7FC260D8@deployingradius.com>
References: <153420629857.24982.2722057727598250846@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Tim Evens <tievens=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/gG4XpE5YMkbEMa6EyGom7F_QAIc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 20:00:24 -0000
On Aug 13, 2018, at 8:24 PM, Tim Evens <tievens=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Minor issues: > > Nits/editorial comments: > Abstract contains "Section 3.1" which becomes an HTML reference > link. This incorrectly links to the current draft section 3.1, > not the intended RFC5176 Section 3.1. This is repeated in > the introduction. Fixed. > IMO, that last sentence would read better with "corrects the omission" > instead of "that." It's been reworded to be clearer over all. > Code points are not summarized in IANA Considerations section. Fixed. > The references are not formatted per RFC7322. > > The HTML rendering of Section 2.2 CoA Processing does not render > the RFC5176 link correctly. Bracketed references normally are followed > by some text. I'll fix that. > IMO, considering this draft updates 5176, I feel it would be better for the > problem statement to be clearer on updates and clarifications. Perhaps you could suggest text? My understanding is that the problem statement is fairly clear: * CoA proxying is currently impossible And the solution: * define a method for doing CoA proxying > In section 3.3, while humorous, I suggest dropping "on the planet." Done. And clarified substantially as a result of IESG feedback. > Section 6 Security Considerations link for Section 11 of RFC6929 is > missing keyword "of." This results in two links instead of the correct > link. Fixed.