Re: [kitten] review of draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-07

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Leif Johansson wrote:

>
> Folks,
>
> I've reviewed version -07. I general I think the document is in good shape.
> Reading through it I've found a small set of relatively minor nits.
>
> - Object Type: A long list of things like "Function" and "Integer" is given
> but  the description text basically sais these are just examples. I suggest
> replacing the list with the following text
>
> <Symbol> defined by the binding language
>
> - Registration Rules: Suggest change to say:
>
> "<Reference> to Policy defined by [RFC5226] or an RFC that
> updates [RFC5226], for instance ..."
>
> Finally, I  find the guidelines to Expert reviewers to be somewhat hard to
> follow. The final paragraph in section 8.2.2 to me basically reads as "use
> your good judgement".
>
> Personally I would find it difficult to draw any guidance from that text
> but I
> fully understand if this horse has been flogged enough.

I've also reviewed version -07, and don't see anything particularly 
objectionable.

Minor nits:

In the table in section 7, in the entry for "Registration Rules", my first 
reading left me confused as to which sub-namespace "items that fall in 
this sub-namespace" referred to.  Re-reading makes it clear that the 
sub-namespace is the one which has this Registration Rules attribute, and 
I don't have any ideas for how to reword the text to be clearer.  The 
capitalization of "sub-namespace" is a bit inconsistent throughout the 
document.

The table entry for "Reference" should add an 'a' in "Reference to a 
document".

The "Expert Reviewer" entry is internally inconsistent about how many 
reviewers can be listed in a single field.  Multiple instances are 
allowed, which would seem to indicate that one-reviewer-per-instance is 
the correct disambiguation.

In section 8, the meaning might be more clear with a comma between 
"multiple registries" and "each".

In the first paragraph of 8.2.2, "there is are any IETF Working Groups" 
has an unnecessary "is".

-Ben