Hi All, Thanks to all for the review!
Here is a brief summary of the minor changes requested raised during the WGLCs: Change Request#1: Rational: duplication of text between the "Requirement language" note and the section 3 "requirements" Proposed change: Remove one of the section Proposed answer: the "Requirement language" is removed while the section 3 remains unchanged. Change Request#2: rational: In section 1 "Introduction", "manual configuration is an example of another one" is not necessary phrase in this sentence. Proposed change: Remove from the sentence Proposed answer: this part of the text is removed from the sentence. Change Request#3: Rational: In section 2 "terminology", section providing few explanations, especially for DHC folks that don't know about PANA. Proposed change: Elaborate relevant terms described in this document in brief especially, PaC, PAA. Proposed answer: besides references to DHCP and PANA specifications, PAA and PaC entities are explicitly introduced. Change Request#4: Rational: Is the section 3 "DHCP Specification Depedency" really needed? Proposed change: Remove or elaborate any explicit aspect Proposed answer: this section is removed as it is redundant with the section 2 Change Request#5: Rational: in sections 5 and 6, "option-length: Length of the 'options' field in octets; Must be a multiple of four (4)" Proposed change: "Must" should be a "MUST" Proposed answer: "Must" is replaced by "MUST" in section 5 and 6. All the changes will be taken into account in a new version of the draft. Best Regards, Lionel > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Stig Venaas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : vendredi 8 septembre 2006 09:29 > À : dhcwg > Objet : Re: [dhcwg] dhc wg last call on "DHCP options for > PANA AuthenticationAgents" > > Thanks to all that responded. The draft passed wglc in both > dhc and pana. A new revision will be made with some changes > that were asked for. > > Stig > > Stig Venaas wrote: > > We need more people to respond for this to pass last call, > there are > > now > > 2 days left. Please help review the document, and let us > know whether > > you support it. > > > > From a dhc perspective we need to at least make sure that > the use of > > DHCP and the option format etc make sense. > > > > Many thanks to the one person who has responded so far, > > > > Stig > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > _______________________________________________ Pana mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
