[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-klensin-ftp-registry-02

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-klensin-ftp-registry-02
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-11-20
IETF LC End Date: 2009-11-23
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

This draft is very close to ready to publish as a proposed standard. I have one minor clarification question, and a few nits.

Major issues:

None.

Minor issues:

-- section 2.4:

The section indicates that "base" FTP commands are not to be included in the registry. Is IANA expected to verify that any newly registered extensions do not conflict with base commands?

Nits/editorial comments:

-- Section 2.2, "Extension name" section. 

The text states that this column is called "FEAT Code". Should the paragraph be entitled "FEAT Code" rather than "Extension name" ?

-- Section 3, last paragraph prior to table:

s/marke/marked

-- IDNITS returns the following. In the case of the downref, I understand why it is there and do not object per se, but I wonder if it would not make more sense for that to be an informational reference. That is, it does not seem necessary to understand or implement the referenced document to understand or implement this one.

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 355, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 2773

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1545
     (Obsoleted by RFC 1639)