Re: [Bier] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-09

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

I don't believe that a document has to be Standards Track to create a
registry that will require Standards Track going forward.
It is a bit unusual, but I don't see a process problem.

Regards,
Alia


On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Valid issue, probably for the AD to ponder on ;-)
>
>  Maybe the following will serve us best here
>
> * 4.6 Specification Required +
>
> * 4.7 RFC Required +
>
> * 4.8 IETF Review
>
> which doesn't precondition Standards track but for all practical purposes
> does the full rigmarole otherwise ...
>
>
> thanks
>
> --- tony
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Peter Yee <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Reviewer: Peter Yee
>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>
>> 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 wait for direction from your
>> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>>
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>
>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-09
>> Reviewer: Peter Yee
>> Review Date: 2017-10-16
>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-10-16
>> IESG Telechat date: 2017-10-26
>>
>> Summary:  This well-written draft is an Experimental specification for how
>> encapsulation is performed in the BIER architecture in order to optimally
>> forward a packet through a multicast domain while not being burdensome to
>> intermediate routers.
>>
>> This draft is ready with issues.
>>
>> Major issues: None.
>>
>> Minor issues: This Experimental draft specifies that entries to its BIER
>> Next
>> Protocol Identifiers registry are to be done according to the "Standards
>> Action" policy of RFC 8126.  It's not entirely clear to me whether RFC
>> 8126's
>> requirement that such entries be from Standards Track or BCP documents
>> applies
>> to the initial set of values.  If it does, then there's an issue here
>> between
>> RFC 8126 and this draft's desired status.
>>
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>
>> General:
>>
>> Replace "ethernet" with "Ethernet" throughout.
>>
>> Replace "ethertype" with "Ethertype" or "EtherType" throughout.  (IEEE
>> usage is
>> varies between the two, unfortunately.)
>>
>> Specific:
>>
>> Page 3, second bullet item: change "is" to "are".
>>
>> Page 4, last paragraph: this paragraph is redundant to one it follows
>> fairly
>> closely in Section 1.  Consider striking it, although it's not harmful.
>>
>> Page 5, Section 2.1.1.1, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: change "ISIS" to
>> "IS-IS".
>>
>> Page 9, OAM definition, 1st paragraph, second sentence: delete a
>> duplicated
>> "the" in the sentence.
>>
>> Page 10, Section 2.1.3, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete a duplicated
>> "in"
>> from the sentence.
>>
>>
>