| CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E2 | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) (pcalhoun |
|
| Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:55:46 -0700 (PDT) | |
All, The IESG Comment is as follows: E2 - A number of editorial problems have been detected when running idnits. Please fix them: ------------------ Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use 'MUST NOT' (if that is what you mean). Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph: Unless otherwise specified, a control message that lists a set of supported (or expected) message elements MUST not expect the message elements to be in any specific order. The sender MAY include the message elements in any order. Unless otherwise noted, one message element of each type is present in a given control message. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'ChangeCipherSpec' is mentioned on line 1456, but not defined '[ChangeCipherSpec]...' == Unused Reference: 'RFC2132' is defined on line 6048, but no explicit reference was found in the text '[RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendo...' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3280 (Obsoleted by RFC 5280) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1883 (Obsoleted by RFC 2460) -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of draft-calhoun-dhc-capwap-ac-option is -00, but you're referring to -02. -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'I-D.calhoun-dhc-capwap-ac-option' (No intended status found in state file of draft-calhoun-dhc-capwap-ac-option) == Outdated reference: draft-housley-aaa-key-mgmt has been published as RFC 4962 ---------------------------- I have made the necessary changes to address all of the issues. PatC
-
CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E2 Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), June 18 2008
-
Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E2 Romascanu, Dan (Dan), June 18 2008
- Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E2 Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), June 18 2008
-
Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E2 Romascanu, Dan (Dan), June 18 2008
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.