Hello,
According to BCP26/RFC8126 section 5.3 Designated expert reviews, it says:"
When a designated expert is used, the documentation should give clear guidance to the designated expert, laying out criteria for performing an evaluation and reasons for rejecting a request.
I don't see the above in this document. This is going to have to be added to have any kind of validity or the IESG should reject to publication of this document. Especially because this entire document will updating the IANA considerations section of rfc3405.
Tim
On 08/31/2020 11:23 PM Brian Carpenter via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:Reviewer: Brian CarpenterReview result: ReadyGen-ART Last Call review of draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General AreaReview Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processedby the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments justlike any other last call comments.For more information, please see the FAQ atDocument: draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03Reviewer: Brian CarpenterReview Date: 2020-09-01IETF LC End Date: 2020-09-24IESG Telechat date:Summary: Ready (with micro-nit)--------Nits:-----1. IntroductionPart five of the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS), RFC 3405[RFC3405], describes the registration procedures for assignments inURI.ARPA. The document requires that registrations be in the "IETFtree" of URI registrations. The use of URI scheme name trees wasdefined in RFC 2717 [RFC2717] but discontinued by RFC 4395 [RFC4395].Since the use of trees was discontinued, there is no way in thecurrent process set out in BCP 35 [RFC7595] to meet the requirement.This is indeed a nit, but I'd prefer s/the requirement/the above requirement/.The current text did make me briefly think "Which requirement?"._______________________________________________dispatch mailing list
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
