Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art review: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-13.txt

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:49:12 +0100

Background for those on the CC list, who may be unaware of GenART:
GenART is the Area Review Team for the General Area of the IETF.  We
advise the General Area Director (i.e. the IETF/IESG chair) by providing
more in depth reviews than he could do himself of documents that come up
for final decision in IESG telechat.  I was selected as the GenART
member to review this document.  Below is my review, which was written
specifically with an eye to the GenART process, but since I believe that
it will be useful to have these comments more widely distributed, others
outside the GenART group are being copied.

Document: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-13.txt
Intended Status: BCP
Shepherding AD: Scott Hollenbeck
PROTO Shepherd: Randy Presuhn
Review Trigger: IESG Telechat, 13 November 2005

LC Date:  06 Sept 2005

Review: This document is generally in good shape and well written but is almost 
ready for publication, subject to one issue and an editorial nit:

S3.1, para 1, last sentence: Unfortunately there has been an interaction between 
two sets of last call comments which has lead to a problem.

When I reviewed this document for last call the corresponding registry 
initialisation document  (draft-ietf-ltru-initial-04.txt) was going
to contain an archival list of all the subtags that were going to be registered
initially.  I therefore made the point that generating registration forms
for them was rather redundant.  The authors and wg accepted this and s3.1 was
changed accordingly.

In the meantime, another last call reviewer suggested that maintaining the list 
in the initialisation document was dangerous as it might be
used instead of the registry itself. This comment was also accepted and so
draft-ietf-ltru-initial-05.txt has instructions to remove the actual list
before publication.

This means that we have gone from the position where there would have been two
records of the initial registrations to one where there will now be zero
records.  This is almost certainly not desirable.

So I guess we should go back to the original wording from v11 of this draft 
which requires the creation of registration forms for the extra  (non-3066)
items registered when the new registry is created.

Editorial nit:
The new title of Figure 2 should be 'Registry Record Format' and not
'record-jar format' (which it isn't in any case).

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art