> On Feb 20, 2018, at 14:50, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review result: Ready with Issues > > 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 > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-05 > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review Date: 2018-02-20 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-03-01 > IESG Telechat date: 2018-03-08 > > Summary: A well written document that is difficult to check and easy to make a > mistake with. There are a tiny number of editorial matters. The matter of the > semantics of Recommended = no may need to further thought and clarification. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: > > I think convention is to list the documents being updated in the Abstract, but > cannot find any formal guidance. You’re right that is the convention, but it’s not required. draft-flanagan-7322bis is attempting to make including updates in the abstract a must, but it’s not been through any kind of LC yet. There is a sentence there saying that a lot of RFCs are updated and to see the updates header so I think under the 7322 to balance concise and to not include references I’m thinking this is okay. > ====== > > If an item is marked as not recommended it does not necessarily mean > SB> Do you mean "marked as not recommended" or "not marked as recommended”. There are two states for the Recommended column: YES and NO. I can go either way on whether marked as not recommended = NO not marked as recommended = NO WG - thoughts? > ======= > SB> I am worried about the semantics of Recommended = no. > SB> Presumably there are three states: recommended, not recommended, > SB> and silent/don't know/don't care/not yet. Which of these > SB> states does Recommended = no represent? There are two states and a draft that specifies a value in a registry that has a Recommended column needs to state which it is. I’m not too concerned because we can change the column value later if it turns out a NO should have been a YES. > Nits/editorial comments: > Abstract > > This document describes a number of changes to (D)TLS IANA registries > > SB> TLS is not a well known abbreviation and so needs expanding Right well I should fix that ;) I made the following tweak: OLD: (D)TLS NEW Transport Layer Security and Datagram Transport Layer Security ((D)TLS) PR: https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/pull/63 > ======== > > This document instructs IANA to make changes to a number of (D)TLS- > > SB> TLS needs expanding See above. spt
