Review of draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-11

Brian Carpenter <> Thu, 26 January 2017 00:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE8A126D74; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:48:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Brian Carpenter <>
To: <>
Subject: Review of draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-11
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.4
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:48:27 -0800
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 00:48:27 -0000

Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review result: Ready with Nits

Gen-ART Last CAll review of draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-11.txt

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

Document: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-11.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2017-01-26
IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-15 
IESG Telechat date:  

Summary: Ready with nits


I've been tracking this draft since the start and I'm very supportive
of it.
I have reviewed the changes since my previous review of -08, and I am
them. I have made some comments on issues raised by other reviwers,
but as
one of them said perfection is impossible.


> 7. Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups
> technology in violation if this principle if there is a very good

s/if this principle/of this principle/

> 13. Changes Since RFC 3979 and RFC 4879
> 16. Changes Since RFC 3979

Should the preamble to these sections state that they are provided
for informational purposes only and that in case of doubt the text 
of sections 1-12 prevails?

Should these two sections be merged?