Re: [bfcpbis] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-26

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



HI Pete,

Thank you for this careful review. Please see comments inline [cue].

-----Original Message-----
From: bfcpbis <bfcpbis-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 8:36 PM
To: "gen-art@xxxxxxxx" <gen-art@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "bfcpbis@xxxxxxxx" <bfcpbis@xxxxxxxx>, "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, "draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis.all@xxxxxxxx" <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis.all@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [bfcpbis] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-26

    Reviewer: Pete Resnick
    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-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-26
    Reviewer: Pete Resnick
    Review Date: 2018-10-18
    IETF LC End Date: 2018-10-17
    IESG Telechat date: 2018-10-25
    
    Summary: Ready, but one issue with the IANA Considerations section.
    
    I reviewed the diff with 4583. The changes were easily understandable and the
    improvements were obvious. Well done. No major issues at all. I think section
    13 isn't as clear as it ought to be, but not a showstopper. A couple of nits
    noted.
    
    Major issues: None.
    
    Minor issues:
    
    13: I found this section confusing. You could just explain this interactively
    with IANA, as I suspect they will find it confusing too, but I'd suggest:
    
    - Where you need to have IANA do something new, identify that to IANA as "IANA
    is requested to register...", replacing "This document defines" in 13.6.
    
    - For the remainder, identify those with "IANA has registered...", replacing
    "This document defined" in 13.2 through 13.5. You can put a parenthetical note
    next to each one that says, "No new IANA action requested here"
    
    This all gets cleaned up by the RFC Editor anyway, but the whole idea of the
    IANA Considerations is to make it clear what IANA needs to do, not format the
    section for what it should look like when published.

[cue] Good catch, and spot on. The IANA review raised these exact questions, to which we provided the clarifications you suggested.
    
    Finally, I don't see a need for the "contact iesg@xxxxxxxx" bit. This is going
    to be a standards track document, and that is always the case for standards
    track documents.

[cue] Will check with RFC editor about removing this.
    
    Nits/editorial comments:
    
    5.1:
    
    - Table 1 contains "c-s", but it has not yet been explained. I would move it
    below the subsequent paragraph.	

[cue] Good idea.
    
    - In the paragraph that begins, "Endpoints compliant with [RFC4583]", the comma
    in the second sentence belongs after "present", not "client".

[cue] Yes, thanks.
    
    5.2:
    
    - In the section title, s/Attributes/Attribute

[cue] Yes, thanks.

Cheers,
Charles
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    bfcpbis mailing list
    bfcpbis@xxxxxxxx
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
    





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux