>> I'm fine with deferring such a discussion to >> draft-ietf-add-dnr; I'm also fine with just removing any reference >> to Reconfigure from this draft (and maybe stating that's an out- >> of-scope topic). > [Med] I don't understand this position as what we are discussing > here is ** an example ** (not a reco or a new feature) to illustrate > the use of the attributes with CoA. That example wouldn’t be > complete if the DHCP leg is not exemplified as well. Issues with > reconfigure are well-known and adequate references for readers who > want to learn more are now provided in the document. One main concern of mine is that it's not so clear whether it's just an example or not. I actually also thought this section is intended just as an example. But it's one of the body of this document (not in an appendix), and while the RADIUS part of the protocol is generic, it's obvious the primary motivation is to use it for ietf-add-dnr. So I also thought the applicability of this section may have to be discussed in more detail, either in this doc or in ietf-add-dnr. If you're saying that this is just an example and its applicability doesn't matter much, then I'd be happier if it were clearer that the content of this section is a mere example. One clear way for that is to move this section to an appendix. Another would be to add a sentence or two clarifying that intent at the top of that section. If you're not willing to do either, I think we should agree to disagree here. In that case please feel free to dismiss my point. I'd also suggest removing the reference to RFC6977, since it was added to address my comment but it doesn't address it anyway. -- jinmei -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
