I'm going to No Objection and I suppose you'll do an RFC Editor note.
Brian
On 2007-01-30 16:39, Mark Townsley wrote:
On second look, this is rather small. Vipin, I can do either. If you
wish to provide me text in "OLD" "NEW" format, or a new document.
- Mark
Suresh Krishnan wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-ietf-l2tpext-failover-11.txt
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
that should be fixed before publication.
Comments:
Minor:
======
* IANA considerations
The IANA considerations section does not specify the namespace from
which allocation is requested for the AVPs and the message types.
Editorial:
==========
* Section 4.2 Failover Session Response
This sentence has a typo and does not read well
"It is not required to respond one FSQ message with just on FSR."
I suggest removing it altogether so that the text will simply read
"An endpoint MAY choose to respond to an FSQ message with multiple FSR
messages"
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
