AD-review of draft-ietf-rap-feedback-frwk-02.txt

Sofar, I never heard anything back on this email

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rawlins, Diana [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: dinsdag 20 augustus 2002 17:39
> To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Hahn, Scott; Mark Stevens (E-mail)
> Cc: Rap-wg (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Request to advance drafts
> 
> 
> I will work with the other authors to address the below 
> comments and with
> the WG chair on that last question. Thank you for the feedback!
> 
> -Diana
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:55 AM
> To: Hahn, Scott; Mark Stevens (E-mail)
> Cc: Rap-wg (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Request to advance drafts
> 
> RAP WG, I got this requestst from your WG chairs.
> > 
> > I would like to submit the following draft to the IESG for 
> > consideration as a Informational RFC:
> > 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rap-feedback-fr
> wk-02.txt
> > 
> 
> My AD-evaluation comments (I understand that a lot of it is 
> admin/bureaucratic, but you basically knew that and it is always best
> to avoid such comments at this late stage).:
> 
> 1. Title and abstract contain Acronyms that RFC-Editor no
>    longer want to see. You have to expand them.
>    See: http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html
> 
> 2. abstract should not have references. You have a [COPS] reference.
>    I think you can just use RFC 2478 and leave the ref out.
>    See: http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html
> 
> 3. References need to be split in normative and informative references
> 
> 4. You have text in "Conventions used in this document" on MUST
>    language and such. That is good. Probably better to include it in
>    the intro section (or at least after the abstract).
>    But more important, you need to add [RFC-2119] reference to the
>    references section
> 
> 5. I think it would be good to do some sort of terminology at the
>    beginning of the intro. Either explain terms like PDP, 
> PEP, SIP, PRC
>    (or at least extend the acronym first time it is used). Might also
>    add a reference to the terminology as per RFC3198 
> 
> 6. You seem to be using (what we call) redmond-characters in a few
>    places: 2nd para sect 2, sdt para sect 7, may be other places
> 
> 7. Last sect of para 4.1. 
>    Could we add HOW a PDP may sollicit usage feedback/
> 
> 8. sect 7, 2nd para
>    Can you ellaborate on what sort of "additional information
>    must be provided to uniquely identify...."
> 
> 9. Sect 8, can you explain what a "context switch" is?
> 
> 10. Security consideration.
>     - You must specify one mandatory to implement.
>       you are now just saying "...protection can be accomplished".
>     - When you specify the use of IPsec, pls do not just say 
>       "just use IPsec".  A clearer statement is needed, 
>       specifying the necessary IPsec selectors (per RFC 2401)
>       and the way the cryptographically protected endpoints are
>       related to the authorization model, i.e., who can do what.
> 
Bert