Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-05
review-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-05-genart-lc-evens-2018-08-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-08-13
Requested 2018-07-30
Authors Alan DeKok , Jouni Korhonen
I-D last updated 2018-08-13
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Tim Evens (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Kathleen Moriarty (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tim Evens
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2018-08-13
review-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-05-genart-lc-evens-2018-08-13-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-??
Reviewer: Tim Evens
Review Date: 2018-08-13
IETF LC End Date: 2018-08-13
IESG Telechat date: 2018-08-16

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has 
nits that should be fixed before publication.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: 
Abstract contains "Section 3.1" which becomes an HTML reference
link. This incorrectly links to the current draft section 3.1,
not the intended RFC5176 Section 3.1.  This is repeated in 
the introduction.  

IMO, that last sentence would read better with "corrects the omission"
instead of "that."

Code points are not summarized in IANA Considerations section. 

The references are not formatted per RFC7322.

The HTML rendering of Section 2.2 CoA Processing does not render
the RFC5176 link correctly.  Bracketed references normally are followed
by some text.

IMO, considering this draft updates 5176, I feel it would be better for the
problem statement to be clearer on updates and clarifications. 

In section 3.3, while humorous, I suggest dropping "on the planet." 

Section 6 Security Considerations link for Section 11 of RFC6929 is 
missing keyword "of." This results in two links instead of the correct
link.