|
> From: housley@vigilsec.com > To: iesg@ietf.org > CC: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr; radext-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-radext-status-server@tools.ietf.org > 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 > |