I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for their information and to allow them to address any issues raised. The authors should consider this review together with any other last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-dir@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward this review. My comments on the document are: 1. Section 3. I wonder if "Standards Action" is the most appropriate rule here. My concern with this is that any other body must perform the work in the IETF and give IETF full change control over this proposal. This might intended, but I wonder if it is the most appropriate policy. My suggestion would be to allow IESG approval as a policy also to give some freedom in the strange cases. I do think an IETF standards RFC is the preferred way for doing this, but it might be overly restrictive. 2. Section 6. Why doesn't this document populate this registry with some initial values. The document it self already lists some of these. So why not include the ones and a note that they are legacy and does not come with the new required consideration section? Best Regards Magnus Westerlund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf