Hi Brian, Thanks for the review! I’ve updated our working copy to fix the nits you mention: https://github.com/capport-wg/api/commit/a9d1dabf8b8b1e4275b98cc5d022d12bece97e70 > On May 3, 2020, at 9:29 PM, Brian Carpenter via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review result: Ready with Nits > > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-capport-api-07.html > > Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-capport-api-07 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-capport-api-07.html > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review Date: 2020-05-04 > IETF LC End Date: 2020-05-11 > IESG Telechat date: > > Summary: Ready (almost...) > -------- > > Minor Issue: > ------------ > >> If the client is captive (i.e. captive=true), >> it can still be allowed enough access for it to perform server >> authentication Section 4.1. > > What does "can" mean? MAY or perhaps SHOULD? Is this a local policy decision? Changed this to “will”. This does not need to be a normative claim here, as it is simply describing what the server deployment will do based on the referenced section. > > Nit: > ---- > >> If the client is captive (i.e. captive=true), >> it can still be allowed enough access for it to perform server >> authentication Section 4.1. > > Missing parentheses around "Section 4.1"? Fixed! Best, Tommy -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
