Hi Stewart, Thanks for that. That part of IANA considerations is gone, after some consultation with IANA in Prague. Cheers, > On 25 Jul 2017, at 2:46 am, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review result: Ready with Nits > > 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 wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis-07 > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review Date: 2017-07-24 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-05-26 > IESG Telechat date: 2017-08-03 > > Summary: Ready except for some confusing IANA text - please see below. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > > I find the following text very confusing: > > IANA will direct any incoming requests regarding the registry to this > document and, if defined, the processes established by the expert(s); > typically, this will mean referring them to the registry Web page. > Note that the expert(s) are allowed (as per Section 2.1.1.1) to > define additional fields to be collected in the registry. > > You cannot direct a request to a document, and I am not sure you collect things > in registry. It would be useful to take another look at the above text. > > > > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/