Christer, thanks for your review. Stephane, thanks for your response. I entered a No Objection ballot. Ben has flagged the IANA considerations issue in his ballot. Alissa > On Jul 14, 2020, at 8:50 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=40ericsson.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Stephane, > >> Thanks for your comments. >> For your information, this document is just a revision of RFC5549, so 99,9% of the text is just copy/paste from the existing RFC. >> Of course, we can improve things. >> >> I'll take care of your comments for a next revision. >> For the IANA section, as IANA will not have any action, I would prefer keeping the existing text from RFC5549. We can also let other people comment on that point. > > In that case, shouldn't you at least update the reference (from RFC5549 to this document) in the IANA registry? > > But, as the document obsoletes RFC5549, I would personally include the complete registration text in this document - even if it is just copy/paste from RFC5549. > > Regards, > > Christer > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christer Holmberg via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: vendredi 10 juillet 2020 00:17 > To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc: draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; bess@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04 > > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > Review result: Almost 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-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04 > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > Review Date: 2020-07-09 > IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-21 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. I only have a couple of editorial nits. > > Major issues: N/A > > Minor issues: N/A > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Q1. In the Abstract, I suggest the split the text into 2 paragrahps, where the "This document specifies..." sentence is the beginning of the second paragraph. > > Q2. In the Introduction section, in the last paragraph, instead of saying "This document specifies the extensions necessary to do so." I suggest to be explicit about what the document specifies - similar to the Abstract. > > Q3. The document uses "IPvX Network Layer Protocol" and "IPvX Protocol" > terminology. Similarly, the document uses "IPvX" and "IPvX Address" > terminology. Unless there is a good reason, I suggest do double check whether the terminology can be more consistent. > > Q4. In the IANA Considerations section, I suggest to use the IANA registry table format, where the different values (Value, Description and Reference) are indicated, e.g., as in Section 7 of RFC 8654. Also similar to 8654, please indicate the IANA registry name. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
