Thanks, Pete, for a very helpful review. Barry
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 11:52 AM Pete Resnick via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > Review result: Not Ready > > 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 > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-gellens-lost-validation-05 > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > Review Date: 2020-03-07 > IETF LC End Date: 2020-03-31 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > > Abstract, Scope, and Introduction do not accurately reflect the content of > the > document, which is not simply a registration. > > Major issues: > > The Abstract and sections 1 & 2 (Scope and Introduction) indicate that this > document is simply an IANA registration of an S-NAPTR Application Service > Tag. > However, section 3 is quite clearly new protocol, some of which changes > how RFC > 5222 implementations should operate if used in a particular context, and > section 4 lays out the backward compatibility of this new protocol with > legacy > RFC 5222 implementations. There is the implication that the NENA i3 > documents > will actually be the home of that protocol, but the current i3 document > referenced here does not do so, making this document the canonical > statement of > the protocol operations necessary to implement the i3 architecture. That > doesn't seem appropriate for an Informational document that purports to > simply > be a registration. > > At the very least, the Abstract, Scope, and Intro would need to be updated > to > reflect the actual contents of the document. I think things would be better > served by making this a Proposed Standard document so that it gets the > appropriate level of review. I understand from the Shepherd writeup that > the > ECRIT WG doesn't have the energy to really work on this document. However, > this > is a simple enough extension to the LoST protocol that I think it's > unproblematic to have it as an AD-sponsored standards track document. > > > >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
