[Gen-art] RE: genart review & Re: [IANA #48214] RE: Last Call: 'A Timezone Option for DHCP' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dhc-timezone-option)

Eliot,

	It looks as if IANA has already done the homework, hence
you do not need to repeat it.  You might ask them if they would
prefer you to include their suggestions in your document (so it
will not be necessary for them to look for their previous mail,
or redo the work).  Or Jari might provide them with a pointer
to their previous mail.  Or we might just assume they will do
what they need to do.

	Your document is pretty straight-forward, so I leave it
to you...

--
Eric 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 3:59 PM
> To: Eric Gray (LO/EUS)
> Cc: Paul Eggert; gen-art@ietf.org; Jari Arkko; 
> drafts-lastcall@icann.org
> Subject: Re: genart review & Re: [IANA #48214] RE: Last Call: 
> 'A Timezone Option for DHCP' to Proposed Standard 
> (draft-ietf-dhc-timezone-option)
> 
> Dear Eric,
> 
> Thank you for your review.  Please see the attached note from 
> IANA.  Can 
> you assist me in reconciling your note and theirs?  If I read 
> their note 
> correctly, they have sufficient information.  Is this not the case?
> 
> Eliot
> 
> Eric Gray (LO/EUS) wrote:
> > 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-ietf-dhc-timezone-option-05.txt
> >
> > 	A Timezone Option for DHCP
> >
> > Reviewer: Eric Gray
> > Review Date: 2007.01.11
> > IETF LC End Date: 2007.01.11
> >
> > Summary: 
> >
> > This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed 
> > Standard.  There is one issue that may need to be addresed.
> > Additional, minor, comment(s) and or NITs may be addressed 
> > at the author's or AD's discretion.
> >
> > Comments: 
> >
> > Issue - section 10 should specifically identify the values
> > that need to be assigned by IANA.  In fact, at some point,
> > it will be necessary to provide IANA with the substance of
> > any notes that should be added to the registry.
> >
> > I recommend adding a specific note to this section and use
> > variable names to allow the RFC editor to easily update the
> > RFC with the values IANA provides.  It seems likely that it
> > should be sufficient simply to list the names used for the
> > values needed.
> >
> > >From my review, it appears that IANA needs to assign values
> > "PCode" and "TCode" identified in section 2 ("New Timezone 
> > Options for DHCPv4"), and "OPTION_NEW_POSIX_TIMEZONE" and
> > "OPTION_NEW_TZDB_TIMEZONE" identified in section 6 ("New 
> > Timezone Options for DHCPv6").
> >
> > I would suggest adding text similar to the following -
> >
> > "The values required are:
> >
> >     For DHCPv4 (section 2 of this memo)
> >
> >         PCode
> >         TCode
> >
> >     For DHCPv6 (section 3 of this memo)
> >
> >         OPTION_NEW_POSIX_TIMEZONE
> >         OPTION_NEW_TZDB_TIMEZONE"
> >
> > ===============================================================
> >
> > NIT - in the abstract, "... DHCP options each ..." should be
> > "... DHCP options for each ..." ("for" added).
> >
> >   
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art