COMMENT: draft-ietf-radext-status-server

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

> 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
>