Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 18:13:06 -0400

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

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

Document: draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02
Reviewer: David L. Black
Review Date: June 5, 2013
IETF LC End Date: June 4, 2013

Summary:
This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review.

This draft updates the IANA registered Ethernet parameters for IETF use,
including recording values assigned for documentation.  It also makes some
minor changes to IANA procedures.

IANA should review this entire draft, not just its IANA Considerations section;
Pearl Liang appears to have done that comprehensive review for IANA.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: One, the IANA review also found this issue.

Section 3.2 states:

	IANA will assign "00-00-0E-00-42" as the protocol number under the	
	IANA OUI to be used for documentation purposes.

IANA has not made this assignment, but this assignment request is not
recorded in the IANA Considerations section where IANA actions are
requested and recorded by IANA after they have been performed.  This
assignment needs to be added to the IANA Considerations section;
see item 5 in the IANA review.

Nits/editorial comments:

Section 1: This document uses an "IESG Ratification" process for some
assignments.  This is not the same process as the "IESG Approval" process
defined in RFC 5226.  As those names could be confused by a casual reader
who is not strongly familiar with IANA processes, I suggest adding a
statement that the "IESG Ratification" process is defined in this document
and is not the same as the "IESG Approval" process in RFC 5226.  This could
be added after the sentence that cites RFC 5226.

Section 1.4: It would be helpful to point out that there is no OUI assigned
for documentation purposes, but there are identifiers based on the IANA OUI
that have been assigned for documentation purposes.

In general, the use of the acronym IAB for Individual Address Block is
unfortunate, but unavoidable, and this is clearly pointed out in the
definition of the IAB acronym in section 1.2.  Nothing can or should be
done about this.

idnits 2.12.17 did not find any nits.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 18:24:36 -0400

Hi David,

Thanks for this review. See below:

> Pearl Liang appears to have done that comprehensive review for IANA.

Right, I'm working on a response to Pearl.

> see item 5 in the IANA review.

OK.

> be added after the sentence that cites RFC 5226.

OK.

> that have been assigned for documentation purposes.

OK.

> idnits 2.12.17 did not find any nits.

I think your suggestions are all good.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 13:47:12 -0400

The -03 version of this draft resolves all of the concerns raised by
the Gen-ART review of the -02 version.

Unfortunately, a serious typo/thinko snuck into the -03 version (been
there, done that, myself).  Section 3.2 currently says:

   00-42 is a protocol number under the IANA OUI (that is,
   00-00-0E-00-42) to be used for documentation purposes.

The parenthetical expansion of the protocol number is incorrect.
The correct expansion uses -5E- instead of -0E-:

   00-42 is a protocol number under the IANA OUI (that is,
   00-00-5E-00-42) to be used for documentation purposes.

I strongly suggest submitting a -04 version of this draft to make
the necessary single character correction (e.g., as opposed to using
a RFC Editor Note for that purpose).

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 6:13 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; General Area Review Team
> Cc: Black, David; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02
>

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:06:30 -0400

Hi David,

> the Gen-ART review of the -02 version.

Thanks.

> The correct expansion uses -5E- instead of -0E-:

My apologies, you are correct. However, I believe that, in context,
the typo is pretty obvious.

> a RFC Editor Note for that purpose).

I defer entirely to JoelJaeggli, the sponsoring AD.

I'd be happy to submit a -04 or it seems to me it could easily be
fixed with an RFC Editor Note or at AUTH48 time. (Actually, it seems
likely to me that during IESG consideration, some other change will be
decided on and this can be fixed at the same time.)

Thanks,
Donald

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 15:09:48 -0400

> I defer entirely to Joel Jaeggli, the sponsoring AD.

I'm happy to leave that decision up to Joel.

I'm concerned about readers who aren't as
cognizant of and comfortable/familiar with the relationships among
OUIs and the identifiers based on them as people like you and me.

Thanks,
--David

> From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 2:07 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: [email-masked]; General Area Review Team; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-03
> 
> Hi David,
>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:07:19 +0300

> OUIs and the identifiers based on them as people like you and me.

Thanks your review, David. The Gen-ART reviews are important for me in helping decide if the documents may have issues where I need to dig in deeper.

In this case I agree with the issue you raise and think it is a mistake that should be corrected. I see that Barry has already raised a discuss about that, however. I am balloting a No-Objection based on your review.

Jari