RE: AD-review of draft-ietf-rap-feedback-frwk-02.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Oh well... sometimes people complain (sometimes even rightfully so)
about the AD not reacting fast enough.... 

So can I now start to (rightfully) complain that authors and wg are
not reacting fast enough?

Has interest been lost? If so, we can remove this work topic
from the WG charter.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) 
> Sent: dinsdag 1 oktober 2002 21:14
> To: Rawlins, Diana; 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Hahn, Scott; Mark Stevens
> (E-mail)
> Cc: Rap-wg (E-mail)
> Subject: AD-review of draft-ietf-rap-feedback-frwk-02.txt
> 
> 
> Sofar, I never heard anything back on this email
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rawlins, Diana [mailto:Diana.Rawlins@wcom.com]
> > Sent: dinsdag 20 augustus 2002 17:39
> > To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Hahn, Scott; Mark Stevens (E-mail)
> > Cc: Rap-wg (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: Request to advance drafts
> > 
> > 
> > I will work with the other authors to address the below 
> > comments and with
> > the WG chair on that last question. Thank you for the feedback!
> > 
> > -Diana
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:55 AM
> > To: Hahn, Scott; Mark Stevens (E-mail)
> > Cc: Rap-wg (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: Request to advance drafts
> > 
> > RAP WG, I got this requestst from your WG chairs.
> > > 
> > > I would like to submit the following draft to the IESG for 
> > > consideration as a Informational RFC:
> > > 
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rap-feedback-fr
> > wk-02.txt
> > > 
> > 
> > My AD-evaluation comments (I understand that a lot of it is 
> > admin/bureaucratic, but you basically knew that and it is 
> always best
> > to avoid such comments at this late stage).:
> > 
> > 1. Title and abstract contain Acronyms that RFC-Editor no
> >    longer want to see. You have to expand them.
> >    See: http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html
> > 
> > 2. abstract should not have references. You have a [COPS] reference.
> >    I think you can just use RFC 2478 and leave the ref out.
> >    See: http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html
> > 
> > 3. References need to be split in normative and informative 
> references
> > 
> > 4. You have text in "Conventions used in this document" on MUST
> >    language and such. That is good. Probably better to include it in
> >    the intro section (or at least after the abstract).
> >    But more important, you need to add [RFC-2119] reference to the
> >    references section
> > 
> > 5. I think it would be good to do some sort of terminology at the
> >    beginning of the intro. Either explain terms like PDP, 
> > PEP, SIP, PRC
> >    (or at least extend the acronym first time it is used). 
> Might also
> >    add a reference to the terminology as per RFC3198 
> > 
> > 6. You seem to be using (what we call) redmond-characters in a few
> >    places: 2nd para sect 2, sdt para sect 7, may be other places
> > 
> > 7. Last sect of para 4.1. 
> >    Could we add HOW a PDP may sollicit usage feedback/
> > 
> > 8. sect 7, 2nd para
> >    Can you ellaborate on what sort of "additional information
> >    must be provided to uniquely identify...."
> > 
> > 9. Sect 8, can you explain what a "context switch" is?
> > 
> > 10. Security consideration.
> >     - You must specify one mandatory to implement.
> >       you are now just saying "...protection can be accomplished".
> >     - When you specify the use of IPsec, pls do not just say 
> >       "just use IPsec".  A clearer statement is needed, 
> >       specifying the necessary IPsec selectors (per RFC 2401)
> >       and the way the cryptographically protected endpoints are
> >       related to the authorization model, i.e., who can do what.
> > 
> Bert
>