RE: Comments on draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-00

Hi Steve, 

Thanks for these comments; I will plan to fix them in next rev. 

Cheers,
Steve  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Bates [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 4:38 PM
> To: Stephen Nadas; [email protected]
> Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-00
> 
> Steve and list,
> 
> A few comments on the unified spec.  I'll break them into two 
> separate posts.  The first contains (hopefully) relatively 
> insignificant editorial changes.
> 
> 1) In section 1.3, paragraph 4, the last sentence, we have a 
> superfluous "a".
> 
> 2) In section 3, paragraph 2, we have the "group" terminology 
> that I referenced in comments back in August.  It has been 
> removed from the abstract and introduction but remains here.  
> I still think it needs to be rephrased to eliminate 
> references to groups.
> 
> 3) In section 6.4.3, when a master transitions to backup 
> based on the receipt of a higher priority advertisement, I 
> think we should add a bullet between "Cancel the Adver_Timer" 
> and "Recompute the Master_Down_Interval"
> saying "Set Master_Adver_Interval to Adver Interval contained 
> in the ADVERTISEMENT". 
> 
> 4) At the very end of section 8.2.2 we have a superfluous "(".
> 
> 5) In section 9.2 in the paragraph following the two bullet 
> items we have this sentence "The functional addresses addresses......"
> 
> 6) In the second to last paragraph of section 9.2 we have 
> some mangled syntax "...these implementations need have to 
> receive...."
> 
> The last two may be too historic to fix!  I confess, I don't 
> give section 9 much attention.
> 
> Happy New Year,
> Steve
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp