Subject: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gue

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:09:05 -0500

Hi there, a couple of follow-up items on this draft:

1) It was still showing as an NVO3 draft at the same time as of this
morning.  I think this just got fixed.

2) Tom's email address in IANA Considerations is from two employers ago.
Unless they're forwarding it, the registries should be updated with
something more current and preferably something permanent-ish.  Also, the
Reference is "draft-herbert-gue" which no longer exists and should probably
be "[this document]" or something similar; the RFC Editor knows what to do
with those prior to publication.

3) Numerous sections from 3.1 down still have some "may" that aren't MAY.
General RFC2119 fun.  Also, 3.5.1 and several points below have "should"
that aren't SHOULD.  Looks like all the "MUST"s have been handled though.

4) Several of the SHOULDs don't explain under what conditions one might
legitimately deviate from the advice attached to the SHOULD.  5.7 has a
good example of this, but it wasn't done for others earlier on.  I didn't
check past there this time, but any below should also be checked.  If
something that's a SHOULD has no legitimate deviation, make it a MUST.

5) 3.6 reads better now, thanks. The GUEEXTENS reference is broken though
(missing close-square-bracket) which means it's not made into a clickable
link.

-MSK