Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro Review result: Has Issues In reviewing this document as part of the Ops Directorate, I wanted to raise a couple of minor issues -- more than nits, less than issues. First, this is a focused well-written document, and I've no concerns and no operational or manageability issues. Issues: 1. [RFC8126] is referenced but not cited. 2. The interesting thing here is that, while this document is updating the IANA rules for a specific registration, RFC 8126 says: "However, requests must include a minimal amount of clerical information, such as a point of contact (including an email address, and sometimes a postal address) and a brief description of how the value will be used. " So the main question I have is: is there a need or desire to take a broader position or a deeper fix? I do not know the history that triggered the writing of this I-D -- but the authors should discuss and introspect on whether those reasons apply more broadly beyond these two registries. Thanks, Carlos.
