[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-tenoever-tao-retirement-03

Susan Hares via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sun, 18 February 2024 20:58 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Susan Hares via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-tenoever-tao-retirement.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <170828988663.15715.9497089300921644914@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 12:58:06 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/0936-GEIrXYnJ6DhbfiWJ2rHFeY>
Subject: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-tenoever-tao-retirement-03

Reviewer: Susan Hares
Review result: Ready with Nits

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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-tenoever-tao-retirement-03
Reviewer: Susan Hares
Review Date: 2024-02-18
IETF LC End Date: 2024-02-22
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

Major issues: None
Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
NIT #1:
Section 3.1 is a bullet list without glue text.
Please add an introductory sentence.

NIT #2: The IETF publishing tools give lots of warnings.
These may be done for good reasons, but it is worthy of a note to the IESG
on why this occurs.

idnits 2.17.1 - found
Checking references for intended status: Informational
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1391 (Obsoleted by RFC 1539)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1539 (Obsoleted by RFC 1718)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1718 (Obsoleted by RFC 3160)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3160 (Obsoleted by RFC 4677)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4677 (Obsoleted by RFC 6722)

Including:
-- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC6722, but the
abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC6722
though, so this could be OK.

Including:
== There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the
document.

** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the
recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119
keywords.

RFC 2119 keyword, line 1785: '...he document says MAY but doesn’t exp...'

Including:
== There are 187 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the
document.

[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-tenoev… Susan Hares via Datatracker