Re: [Isis-wg] Gen-art LC review draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00

On 7/20/14, 11:04 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> Robert -
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 7:27 AM
>> To: draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints@tools.ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org; General
>> Area Review Team
>> Subject: [Isis-wg] Gen-art LC review draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00
>>
>> 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-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00
>> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
>> Review Date: 20-Jul-2014
>> IETF LC End Date: 25-Jul-2014
>> IESG Telechat date: 7-Aug-2014
>>
>> Summary: Basically ready for publication, but with process nits for the
>> group and the IESG to consider
>>
>> Thanks for assembling such a clearly written document.
>>
>> The shepherd writeup should have discussed _why_ this document is
>> intended for Proposed Standard.
>> There is no protocol definition here, and nothing to progress on the
>> standards ladder. This is, instead,
>> primarily defining process. Why isn't this being progressed as a BCP?
> The document does two things:
>
> 1)It updates some registries for sub-TLVs defined at http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml
>
> As these changes are modifying the format (not the content) of registries used by a number of standards track RFCs it needs to be a standards track document.
I don't believe that follows. A BCP could update these documents as well.
>
> 2)It defines procedures for early allocation of codepoints from the above registry.
>
> While an argument could be made that this portion should be BCP, the fact that it is combined with #1 requires that the document be Standards track.
>
>> Should this Update any of the RFCs that previously defined these registries?
> Yes - it updates the following RFCs: 5130, 5311
The  document header (and abstract) should be updated to indicate that.
>
>     Les
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Isis-wg mailing list
>> Isis-wg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg