Hi Linda, thank you for this review. > On Oct 31, 2019, at 17:41, Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Linda Dunbar > Review result: Ready > > 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-core-senml-more-units-?? > Reviewer: Linda Dunbar > Review Date: 2019-10-31 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-10-30 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: The document is very light, describing IANA registration for acronyms > for various UNITs, such as "ms" for Millisecond, "min" for Minute, "kW" for > Kilowatt, etc. While there is no problem of those acronyms, I don't really > understand why it is necessary to have an RFC for this purpose. Many IETF areas > don’t even allow Gap Analysis drafts to be published as RFCs. Registrations to an existing registry indeed do not require an RFC. However, beyond registering a few values, this draft also — creates a new registry and defines its expert review instructions, — updates Standards Track RFC 8428 to accept values from this registry in a place previously governed only by a different registry. While there is still some ongoing debate about whether this was the right approach to address the requirements, if we uphold this approach we will require an RFC. Grüße, Carsten -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
