Capwap Mailing List: Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E2

[Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) (pcalhoun]

OK, closing issue 83.

PatC 

-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca [at] avaya.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:59 AM
To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap [at] frascone.com
Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E2

OK with me, pending on the respective changes being having been made
correctly. 

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun [at] cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:56 PM
> To: capwap [at] frascone.com
> Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E2
> 
> 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
> _________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
> http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
> 
> Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap
>