Subject: [Captive-portals] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2020 21:00:01 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-capport-architecture/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty straightforward.  Looking forward to the API document.

Some nits:

Although I see why you did it, the capitalization of the bullet list in Section
3.2 appears peculiar.

Also curious is that "User Equipment" is defined in Section 2.1, but not
shortened to "UE" anywhere other than in Section 3.5.

In Section 4.1, what's an "RA"?

---

From: Kyle Larose <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 08:33:35 -0400

Hi Murray,

Thanks for the review!

Responses inline.

> draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: No Objection

You're correct. I think the latter three bullets break the
construction anyway, since they don't directly match the titles of the
sections. We'll fix this up.

> shortened to "UE" anywhere other than in Section 3.5.

We should be consistent throughout the document. If it aids
readability, I have no problem changing it to UE. Do you think that
would help?

> In Section 4.1, what's an "RA"?

Router Advertisement (rfc4861). This section is discussing workflows
related to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-02,
which describes how router advertisements would be used in more
detail.

I suppose using the full term here would help clarify, though there is
also an opportunity to reference rfc4861 -- I'm not sure whether
that's necessary, since presumably someone seeking further
clarification would read rfc7710bis, which references rfc4861. I'm
happy to add the reference if you think it's necessary.

Thanks!

Kyle

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 09:49:51 -0700

> readability, I have no problem changing it to UE. Do you think that

Actually since there's only "UE" present in the one section, I would
simply expand it there so it matches the rest of the document.

> happy to add the reference if you think it's necessary.

Either.  I just meant the acronym is introduced but not defined
anywhere.  Even saying "RA (Router Advertisement)" would be an
improvement, but a citation is also a great idea.

-MSK