RE: COMMENT: draft-ietf-radext-status-server

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Alan,
 
I have not seen any response from you to the issues raised in the
DISCUSS and COMMENT made by the different AD's. The IESG telechat is
scheduled for today at 11:30AM ET. Are you on line and preparing answers
to the issues raised? 
 
Thanks and Regards,
 
Dan
 


________________________________

	From: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
	Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 4:25 AM
	To: [e-mail]
	Subject: COMMENT: draft-ietf-radext-status-server
	
	

	> From: [e-mail]
	> To: [e-mail]
	> CC: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
	> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:22:24 -0700
	> Subject: COMMENT: draft-ietf-radext-status-server 
	> 
	> Comment:
	> 
	> Please consider the comments from the Gen-ART Review by
Francis Dupont:
	> 
	> - Abstract page 2: there is an explicit reference to a RFC,
this is in
	> general forbidden but IMHO we are here in the allowed
exception case.
	> 
	> - 2.1.1 page 8: a servers policy -> a server policy
	> 
	> - 3 page 10 (twice): etc. -> etc., ???
	> 
	> - 4.2 page 13: adminstrators -> administrators
	> 
	> - 4.2 page 15 (twice): e.g. -> e.g.,
	> 
	> - 4.3 page 16: modelled -> modeled
	> 
	> - 4.3 page 16: usually the hysteresis against flapping tries
to keep
	> the connection (i.e., failover after 3 missed responses), here
it is
	> the opposite. IMHO it is very aggressive but it is how RFC
3539 works
	> so I have no concern about it.
	> 
	> - 4.5 page 16: Proxyhas -> Proxy has
	> 
	> - 4.5 page 17: cannot, -> cannot
	> 
	> - 4.5 page 18: i.e. -> i.e.,
	> 
	> - 5 page 19: EAP-MEssage -> EAP-Message
	> 
	> - 8 page 23: synthesise -> synthesize
	> 
	> - 8 page 23: in "the suggestion of [RFC5080] Section 2.2.2,
which suggests"
	> suggests -> proposes
	> 
	> - 8 page 23: configurably is not in my dict?
	> 
	> - 9.2 page 23: IMHO the RFC2119 reference should be moved to
normative
	> references section (perhaps others too?)
	> 
	> - Authors' Addresses -> Author's Address
	>