Subject: [Gen-art] Re: draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-01.txt

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 00:03:53 +0200

Gray, Eric wrote:
> =======================================================================
>
> First, while I have to agree the three references listed as Informative
> are what I would imagine most people could agree to be just that, it is
> probable that IANA cannot create the registries indicated until these
> references are published, and possible that IANA will not want this to
> be published until they can create the corresponding registries.  This
> means that these references are essentially Normative in their effect
> on publication of this draft.
>
> Is IANA going to be willing to allow publication of this document as a
> BCP without first creating the registries?  Can IANA create a registry
> with references to WIP?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   
Indeed you have uncovered a couple of bugs here, Thanks Eric.

I went to check up on these three references. The [BERRY] reference is 
for a draft that was actually approved by the IESG back in Jan, but 
seems to have popped out of the RFC Editor's queue shortly after. I had 
not noticed and am following up.

The [ARBERG] reference was just approved days ago, I assume it is 
advancing normally. Michelle (IANA) specifically acknowledged the IANA 
considerations section (which provides a cross-reference to the iana 
document) when this happened last week.

With respect to the [CARREL] reference (PADN and PADM), no one has asked 
me to publish this, and I am not aware of its advancement. The values 
are FCFS, so technically a draft is not needed, but it would be good to 
know if anyone is going to advance this or not. Perhaps it should not be 
in the initial list? Authors, do we know if this is implemented and in use?

Thanks,

- Mark

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

---

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 15:56:57 -0400

Peter/Vince,

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-01.txt. 

For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Summary - this draft is almost ready for publication as a Best Common 
Practices RFC.
 
It is short (6 pages), and clearly written.  I have observation(s), 
or question(s), about the effect of certain kinds of references on 
BCP publication.  I also have some very minor comments about specific 
text (mostly NITs).

NITs
===
I suggest replacing the Terminology section with the following (between
"====" bars):

=======================================================================
   The following terms are used here with the meanings defined in
   BCP 26:  "name space", "registration".

   The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in
   BCP 26: "First Come First Served".
=======================================================================

You do not actually use the terms "assigned value", "Private Use", 
"Expert Review", "Specification Required", "IETF Consensus" or 
"Standards Action"...

In section 2 ("IANA Considerations"), first line of text, change 
"two name space" to "two name spaces".

Section 2.1 ("Recommended Registration Policies for PPPoE TAG Values")
- you might leave out "Recommended" as (assuming publication of this
document) this document will define the registration policy until some
other document redefines it.  Saying that "a point of contact MUST be 
provided" - for instance - is inconsistent with a "recommendation."

To tighten up the wording, the first paragraph in this section should
start with "IANA SHALL ..." (as opposed to "IANA needs to ...").

Also, is it acceptable to provide a reference in lieue of a point of 
contact?  It should be acceptable - especially given the following 
three observations:

1) a referenced document is likely to be more portable and useful
   in the long term than a point of contact,
2) most likely a referenced document will contain (or otherwise
   provide) contact information that is at least as likely to be
   useful, and
3) your own registry entries contain only referenced documents (in
   lieue of point of contact information).

I suggest rewording the last two paragraphs (prior to section 2.2)
something like this:

  "A TAG-Name, and a point of contact or a specification description 
   (if any exists) MUST be provided for any assignment from this 
   registry."

For section 2.3 - similar to the above for section 2.1 (removing 
"Recommended", re-wording, etc.)

Section numbering is funky in section 4/4.1 - I recommend having a
"References" section (section 4) and sub-sections 4.1 and 4.2 for
normative/informative (assuming both remain)...

--
Eric