Re: [radext] AD review of draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I haven't seen any follow up yet and would like to progress this to IETF
last call soon if possible.  My comments are mainly nits or requests to
further clarify text, so hopefully these will be easy to resolve before we
get broader reviews on the drafts where these questions are likely to arise.

Thank you,
Kathleen

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I reviewed draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery and found it to be very
> well written, and covering security and privacy considerations nicely as
> well.  Thank you for that.
>
> I just have a few nits and a question to see if some text can be further
> clarified before progressing this to last call.  I'd like to start IETF
> last call very soon if the WG is ok with that.
>
> Nits & comments:
>
> Please expand out names of DNS labels on first use (NAPTR, SRV, RR,
> etc.).  They are obvious to most of us, but are not in the list of acronyms
> that don't have to be spelled out,
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt
> (If there is a *, RFC editor is okay with not expanding)
>
> Section 3.4.3
> In the algorithm, I am confused by step 12 that simply says "Proceed with
> step 18."  Are there conditions that would have you decide to skip steps
> 13-17 or is this meant to be interpreted as proceed with step 18, then go
> back to step 13?  The example later shows that you skip 13-17, but why this
> happens isn't clear to me.  Did I miss an explanation?
>
> Section 3.4.4
> First paragraph: The second sentence is super long and the last one is
> also a bit too long, can something be done to make these sentences easier
> to read?
>
> Section 3.4.5
> Second to last sentence, just a nit:
> s/control/controls/
>
> The algorithm therefore control execution time with
>    TIMER.
>
>
> Section 3.4.6
> There are some formatting issues at the start of this section, you are
> probably aware of already.
>
> Thank you.
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen