Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-09.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 09:49:20 +0100

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-intarea-provisioning-domains-09.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20191220
IETF LC End Date: 20191225
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - 3.1 page 6: the real purpose of the R-flag / inclusion of a RA header
  could be explained before examples of section 5, for instance in the
  introduction...

 - 3.4 page 10,3.4.3 page 11 (3 times) and 6 page 22 : e.g. -> e.g.,

 - 4.4 page 17: I understand the text about the Subject Name (so it
  is not a minor issue) but RFC 5280 defines the Subject as a X.500
  Distinguished Name so IMHO you mean the Subject Alternative Name.
  I propose to add "(Alternative)" between "Subject" and "Name" so
  the text should become fully correct without introducing extra /
  spurious details.

 - 8.3 page 24: Bit position 0, 1 and 2 are reserved -> assigned

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

[email-masked]