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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On 05/08/2013 19:47, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> 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.
Hi,
Thank you for the review. I believe I addressed most of the editorial 
comments from you and Leif.
>
> 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.

Yes, this is how it typically works. Do you think this needs to be 
clarified?

> 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".