> On 09/01/2020 7:04 AM Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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 Carpenter > > Review result: Ready > > > > Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03 > > > > 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-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03 > > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > > Review Date: 2020-09-01 > > IETF LC End Date: 2020-09-24 > > IESG Telechat date: > > > > Summary: Ready (with micro-nit) > > -------- > > > > Nits: > > ----- > > > > > 1. Introduction > > > Part five of the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS), RFC 3405 > > > [RFC3405], describes the registration procedures for assignments in > > > URI.ARPA. The document requires that registrations be in the "IETF > > > tree" of URI registrations. The use of URI scheme name trees was > > > defined in RFC 2717 [RFC2717] but discontinued by RFC 4395 [RFC4395]. > > > Since the use of trees was discontinued, there is no way in the > > > current 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 > > dispatch@xxxxxxxx > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
