Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of IETF LC draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-07.txt

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:10:13 +0300

Thomas, Harald:

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
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.

Document: draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-07.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Review Date: 2007-08-11
IETF LC End Date: 2007-08-17

Summary: The document is almost Ready for publication as a BCP.

Comments:

1) My general comment is related to the relation of this draft to RFC 
4858 (Document Shepherding from WGLC to publication). Especially, 
Section 4 of RFC 4585 says:

    At the time of this publication, RFC 2434 is under revision
    [RFC2434bis], and the updates are and will be of value to the
    Document Shepherd.  Note that the Document Shepherd MUST determine
    (by individual review and consultation with others) what is the most
    recent and the most applicable IANA information and guidance for his
    or her document, be it the overall guidance, or external documents in
    his or her area, or in other areas.  An example of an external
    document is [RFC4020].

So, I was expecting that the draft, which is the mentioned revision of 
RFC 2434, mentions the role of the Document Shepherd with respect IANA 
considerations and IANA experts. At the moment, it is left to the 
reader's interpretation. My suggestion is to clarify the role of the 
Document Shephard and the IANA process.

2) Although the document uses normative term (e.g., MUST), and includes 
a reference to RFC 2119, it is not done accurately. First, the RFC 2119 
boilerplate is out of date (and id-nits complains). Then, the 
boilerplate is typically written in a separate section titled 
'Terminology', rather than buried at the end of the Introduction 
section. Last, RFC 2119 must be a normative reference.

3) Small contradiction in Section 11, IANA Considerations. While the 
document indicates that "this document is all about IANA 
considerations", it fails to comply with its own Section 6.1 to say 
whether the document itself mandates actions to IANA. I would suggest to 
add or replace the existing sentence with:

   This document has no IANA actions.

4) id-nits reveals some other very minor nits:
- missing expiration date in the draft
- no 'intended status'
- A number of obsolete references, although I think they some of them 
might be intentional, because they are examples of existing IANA registries.
- draft-carpenter-protocol-extensions in now RFC 4775

/Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
Nokia Siemens Networks     Espoo, Finland

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