Sam, I'm glad that my review was helpful. That's just what I hoped. I wanted to provide the perspective of a new reader, someone who wasn't deeply involved in the development of the document. After all, that's one of the main purposes of publishing an RFC: to get this information out to a broader community, a bunch of new readers. And I'm happy to hear that all the IANA Considerations were clear to the IANA team. I appreciate your plans to add a reference to the RFC that defines "early allocation". That will help ensure that the IANA Considerations are clear not only to IANA but also to the more casual reader. Joe's response to my review was very helpful also. He answered many of my questions and concerns. I'm working on a response to Joe's email now. And I look forward to seeing your more detailed response also. Thanks, Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:56 PM > To: Joe Salowey > Cc: Stephen Hanna; draft-ietf-emu-chbind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > secdir@xxxxxxxx; IETF-Discussion list; Sam Hartman > Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-emu-chbind-14 > Importance: High > > > First, Steve, thanks for an excellent review. > You detected some really important fixes we need to make! > > Hi. I'll respond in more detail later. I generally agree with Joe's > comments. > I want to respond to the IANA issues so Joe doesn't have to dig around. > > Early allocation is a well-defined concept; I forgot to reference the > appropriate RFC, but IANA does (and according to their last call > comments did in this case) understand it. > > IANA also correctly assumed the codes registry is a sub-registry not a > new top-level registry. > > I don't mind fixing, but I'll point out that IANA was not actually > confused nor did they request clarification.