Hi Chris, Sorry I missed replying to this earlier. Regarding your question, I can’t think of any good reason to leave 255 in the registration procedures table, it’s been a while but that was probably just an oversight. Unless there’s an objection I’ll cut another version that removes it, before the RFCEd gets their hands on it. —John > On Jun 11, 2019, at 10:27 PM, Christian Hopps via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Christian Hopps > Review result: Ready > > Hello, > > I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft. > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Didr-2Dcapabilities-2Dregistry-2Dchange_&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=emnUhRbCWwi-JEJUnNgHvn_CfCMgH_znQ785O_rURw0&s=K15OIZP7WxZ_9V-qk_nH0Lz7Pi5JcO0Y5dnQhl1gI5g&e= > > The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform > an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the > IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime > as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the > stage that the document has reached. > > As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to > determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider my > comments along with the other working group last call comments. > > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__trac.tools.ietf.org_area_rtg_trac_wiki_RtgDir&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=emnUhRbCWwi-JEJUnNgHvn_CfCMgH_znQ785O_rURw0&s=hYSD0PeieyP2Bgm2hMkUHV1t6o8WSP0eRXnbr1Op714&e= > > Document: draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-05.txt > Reviewer: Christian Hopps > Review Date: June 11, 2019 > Intended Status: Standards Track > > Summary: > > No issues found. This documents is ready to proceed to the IESG. > > Comments: > > The draft is very readable, and ready for publication. > > For my own curiosity: while perusing the per revision changes, I saw "0 - > Reserved" was added then removed from the registration procedures table, but > "255 - Reserved" was left in. I figure "0" was removed b/c it's not a range and > it is reserved in the actual capability registry; however, why wouldn't this > logic then also apply to "255"? > > Thanks, > Chris. > >
