Opsdir last call review of draft-arkko-trip-registry-update-00

[Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
Review result: Has Issues

In reviewing this document as part of the Ops Directorate, I wanted to raise a
couple of minor issues -- more than nits, less than issues.

First, this is a focused well-written document, and I've no concerns and no
operational or manageability issues.

Issues:
1. [RFC8126] is referenced but not cited.
2. The interesting thing here is that, while this document is updating the IANA
rules for a specific registration, RFC 8126 says:
 "However, requests must
   include a minimal amount of clerical information, such as a point of
   contact (including an email address, and sometimes a postal address)
   and a brief description of how the value will be used.  "

So the main question I have is: is there a need or desire to take a broader
position or a deeper fix?

I do not know the history that triggered the writing of this I-D -- but the
authors should discuss and introspect on whether those reasons apply more
broadly beyond these two registries.

Thanks,

Carlos.