RE: AD review of: draft-ietf-rap-cops-tls-07.txt

["Kulkarni, Amol" <amol.kulkarni@intel.com>]

Bert,

Thanks for evaluating the draft. Please see my reply below.

Thanks,
Amol

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rap@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-rap@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 1:14 PM
To: Walker, Jesse
Cc: Rap-wg (E-mail)
Subject: AD review of: draft-ietf-rap-cops-tls-07.txt

Took a while.. but I did find some time to do AD evaluation
of this document.

1. In sect 3.2.1 you talk about Protocol and Flags.
   How does this fit into the ClientSI object defined in RFC2748.
   Is this something needs to be addressed/described in IANA
   Considerations?
   Where should IANA register this? How are future assignments to
   be made? For protocols? for flags? 

2. In sect 3.2.2 you define new sub-error codes. How does that fit
   into the definition of RFC2748? Are the sub-error codes zero by
   default? ANyway, this needs more explanation in IANA considerations
   as to how/where IANA needs to put these new assignments and how
   future values can be allocated, no?
---------------
Amol> I'll update the IANA consideration section for points 1 & 2.

3. Section 7 states that the non-well-know port needs to be communicated
   by the server to the client. But it does not explain how. Am I
missing
   something here?
---------------
Amol> The server redirects the client to the non-well-known port as
explained in section 4. Maybe there was some confusion over
communicating the non-well-known port to the client versus communicating
it to the COPS/TCP server running on the well-known port. The draft
doesn't specify the latter as it is considered out of scope.

4. You may want to add IPR and copyright notices as per RFCs3667/8/9
---------
Amol> OK.