[bfcpbis] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Barry Leiba" <[e-mail]>]

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-13: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The IANA Considerations are a bit confusing, as they appear to ask IANA
to do things that were already done long ago.  I understand that you want
to leave the main text of the IANA Considerations intact, for posterity,
and you've put in some "Editorial note" things.  Maybe the best way to do
this is to (1) change "Editorial note" to "IANA note" or "Note to IANA"
throughout, (2) change the first IANA note (in the base Section 15) to
clearly state that all *changes* that IANA is being asked to make are
spelled out in "IANA note" items in the appropriate places, and (3) make
sure that item 2 is true.  And you do need to respond to Pearl Liang's
IANA review from 2 March, and answer her questions.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks VERY much for leaving it so that a diff with 4582 was still useful
for review.  That helped a great deal.

It's a little nothing, so ignore this if you like, but you consistently
use "MUST" throughout the document, except for one "SHALL" in Section
8.3.3.  If it were me, I'd be consistent and use "MUST" there as well, to
avoid any question of why that one is different.

Thanks for making the editorial changes to the ABNF; I do prefer "*(X)"
to "*[X]".  On the other hand, I actually prefer "*X" to both of those:
there's no need to use parentheses around a single production name.  So,
for example, this:

   BENEFICIARY-INFORMATION =   (BENEFICIARY-INFORMATION-HEADER)
                               [USER-DISPLAY-NAME]
                               [USER-URI]
                              *(EXTENSION-ATTRIBUTE)

Is the same as this:

   BENEFICIARY-INFORMATION =   BENEFICIARY-INFORMATION-HEADER
                               [USER-DISPLAY-NAME]
                               [USER-URI]
                              *EXTENSION-ATTRIBUTE

No harm either way, so leave it as is if you really like it, but... why
the parentheses, especially as long as you're changing them anyway?