Gen-ART review of draft-vegoda-cotton-rfc5735bis-02

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Thu, 09 August 2012 23:05 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432D321F85C7; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.404
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.404 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qO-dHgqP9ret; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (hop-nat-141.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8670521F85C5; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q79N4nAn028185 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:04:50 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.130]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:04:40 -0400
Received: from mxhub13.corp.emc.com (mxhub13.corp.emc.com [128.222.70.234]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q79N4eAR021633; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:04:40 -0400
Received: from mxhub39.corp.emc.com (128.222.70.106) by mxhub13.corp.emc.com (128.222.70.234) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:04:40 -0400
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.189]) by mxhub39.corp.emc.com ([128.222.70.106]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:04:40 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: "michelle.cotton@icann.org" <michelle.cotton@icann.org>, "leo.vegoda@icann.org" <leo.vegoda@icann.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:04:38 -0400
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-vegoda-cotton-rfc5735bis-02
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-vegoda-cotton-rfc5735bis-02
Thread-Index: Ac12g1nlR2o6ek4yS0CffYeN22Tw+A==
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71208F1240F@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:18:58 -0700
Cc: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:05:16 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please
see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

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

Document: draft-vegoda-cotton-rfc5735bis-02
Reviewer: David L. Black
Review Date: August 9, 2012
IETF LC End Date: August 9, 2012

Summary:
This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be fixed before publication.

This draft provides an updated list of the special use IPv4 address blocks
that have been allocated by IANA along with explanations of their special
uses.

I found one nit and idnits found another one.

Section 5 - the first sentence in the second paragraph is:

   The domain name and IP address spaces involve policy issues (in
   addition to technical issues) so that the requirements of [RFC2860]
   do not apply generally to those spaces.

I'm surprised by "do not apply generally".  I would have expected that
the policy issues create requirements and constraints above and beyond
the requirements in RFC 2860 as opposed to replacing those requirements.

idnits 2.12.13 complained about a lot of IP addresses that aren't in
the address ranges used for examples.  These complaints can be ignored,
but idnits did find one actual nit:

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6441' is defined on line 346, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
david.black@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------