I just commented on a Last Call that the I-D is nonsense! The I-D updates the IANA Considerations of an RFC. Trouble is, part of the IANA Considerations were fundamentally changed by an Erratum rendering part of the I-D a nonsense. The I-D is draft-ietf-grow-bmp-registries-change-03 the RFC is 7854 section 10.8, the erratum is 7194. Obviously this has been missed by the authors, missed at adoption, missed at WGLC, missed at AD Review. IANA acted on the erratum and the IANA web site correctly reflects it. I am thinking that the Shepherd Writeup chould include a question as to whether, when an RFC is being updated, any Errata to the RFC have been taken into consideration. I note that the RFC Editor provides a version of the RFC with Errata included and highlighted so the check can be carried out fairly easily. Tom Petch
