Subject: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02

From: Joseph Touch via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 07:02:40 -0800

Reviewer: Joseph Touch
Review result: Ready with Issues

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
[email-masked] if you reply to or forward this review.

There are no transport issues in this document.

The document would benefit from an explanation as to the reason for the need
for this revision and a summary of the differences with the version it
replaces, even if only in an appendix.

There is one significant issue related to this document that needs to be
addressed before it can proceed. There is an outstanding errata from RFC7320
that remains unresolved. The BCP index, markings in the datatracker for these
RFCs, and citations in this document are not aligned; that should be corrected
(in all three places) so the appropriate citation in this document does not
further propagate the error.

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 09:59:26 +1100

Hi Joe,

Thanks for the review. Responses below.

> On 3 Dec 2019, at 2:02 am, Joseph Touch via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Joseph Touch

I agree, will add one. 

> further propagate the error.

Yes - caught earlier and already fixed in source.

Thanks again,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 20:45:07 -0800

Hi, Mark,

> On Dec 2, 2019, at 2:59 PM, Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

That fixes one of the three issues; there are two others. Is anyone fixing those?

(i.e., the BCP index and RFC metadata do not agree with each other).

Joe

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 15:48:21 +1100

> On 3 Dec 2019, at 3:45 pm, Joe Touch <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Mark,
> 

Good question; I'm not sure. I noticed it in <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/b43r1IdU7DYPFY8yKbq2kEHTn-0>, but haven't heard anything more; CC:ing Heather and Henrik for guidance.

Cheers,