Genart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token-09

Peter Yee <peter@akayla.com> Mon, 06 August 2018 05:12 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Peter Yee <peter@akayla.com>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token-09
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153353237835.13480.13229924518873444181@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2018 22:12:58 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oxr_EmCEEFRnZ39JIQpJHES7aME>

Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Nits

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token-09
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: 2018-08-05
IETF LC End Date: 2018-08-03
IESG Telechat date: 2018-08-16

Summary: The draft is ready with a nit and a question.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues:

Page 6, 1st line: how is the client expected to differentiate between the two
reasons behind this response, so that it can remedy the problem?  [I'm not sure
this is considered much of a problem, so ignore this question if the handing is
well understood in the community.]

Nits/editorial comments:

Page 9, 1st partial paragraph, 2nd line: change "auhorization" to
"authorization".

Genart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-allo… Peter Yee
Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-… Gould, James