RE: Review of draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-04.txt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Francois Mule [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 4:07 PM
> To: Dave Thaler; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); [email protected]; C.
> M. Heard
> Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-04.txt
> 
> Dave Thaler wrote:
> > SHOULD fix
> > ----------
> [snip]
> > 13) pktcMtaDevServerDhcp1, pktcMtaDevServerDns1, etc: the
> > DESCRIPTION of
> >
> >     these objects is worded as if the type is a string rather than an
> >     InetAddress (the "dotted" IP address, etc).  Technically,
> > there's no
> >     dots in the value, only in the displayed version of it.
> 
> Good point and yes, this may be confusing.
> Here's a proposed rewording for all the affected object description
> clauses (it's a bit of a convoluted rewording but that's the best I could
> come up with):
> Replace:
> <         If this object is of value '0.0.0.0', the MTA MUST stop
> <         all provisioning attempts as well as all other activities.
> <         If this object is of value '255.255.255.255', it means
>           there was no preference given for the primary DHCP
>           server, and, the MTA must follow the logic of RFC2131, and
>           the value of DHCP option 122 sub-option 2 must be
>           ignored."
> 
> with:
> >         If this object is of an InetAddress value equivalent to
> >         '0.0.0.0', the MTA MUST stop all provisioning attempts
> >         as well as all other activities.
> >         If this object is of an InetAddress value equivalent to
> >         '255.255.255.255', it means
>           there was no preference given for the primary DHCP
>           server, and, the MTA must follow the logic of RFC2131, and
>           the value of DHCP option 122 sub-option 2 must be
>           ignored."
> 
> Ok?
> Jean-François

My original comment was specifically in response to the use of the word "dotted" in the DESCRIPTION clauses, which is no longer present in -05.
For example, -04 had 
	"When the latter has the value 'ipv4(1)', this object  
	contains the dotted IP address of the primary DHCP 
	server."
in the description of pktcMtaDevServerDhcp1, whereas -05 has
	"When the latter has the value 'ipv4(1)', this object  
      contains the IP address of the primary DHCP 
      server."

Hence my original comment has been resolved in -05 and in response to your
proposed text above, I actually prefer the current wording (just
"value '0.0.0.0'" rather than "value equivalent to '0.0.0.0'").

-Dave