Hi Paul,
Thanks for the review. I will fix the footnote issue once all last
call comments come in.
As for the minor issue raised, I will leave it up to the two IANA
folks who are co-authors to voice whether there are possible issues with
this formatting.
Thanks again!
Brian
On 2/28/17 3:50 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> 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-bchv-rfc6890bis-04
> Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
> Review Date: 2017-02-28
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-10
> IESG Telechat date:
>
> Summary:
>
> Ready with Issues
>
> General Comments:
>
> It seems that the primary intent of this document is simply to clarify
> the use of the term "Global". As such it should be just an editorial
> change.
>
> However it takes on the job of restating all the data in RFC6890 that
> provided the initial population of the IANA registries, and also
> restating all the new entries that have been added to those registries
> since RFC6890 was published. And the editorial changes apply to every
> table entry, so there are a *lot* of changes. A diff of the new document
> against the old one fails to match up the appropriate corresponding
> tables, making the document especially hard to review.
>
> I have *tried* to at least spot check the changes, especially those for
> registrations made since RFC6890. But I did not do an exhaustive check
> of every one.
>
> Issues:
>
> Major: 0
> Minor: 1
> Nits: 1
>
> (1) Minor:
>
> I am concerned that the format of this document may be difficult for
> IANA to act on, and may increase the potential for mistakes to be
> introduced. The IANA format for their special purpose IP address
> registries contains the same information as this document but in a
> different format. If I understand correctly, no changes are required to
> the per-address content of the registries - only the introductory
> content and table headings need changes. But given the document format
> IANA will be obligated to check the content of every entry.
>
> I suggest that it might be better to eliminate duplicating the table
> content, and simply state what changes need to be made to the registries.
>
> (2) NIT:
>
> There is an error in the use of footnotes in Table 38. The reference to
> footnote "[2]" should be "[6]". (The footnote numbering has changed
> since RFC680, but both references were intended to be to the same
> footnote.)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
