Re: [Perc] AD review of draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel

["Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]>]

Murray,

Thanks.  The funny syntax has been fixed; user error. :)

I changed the reserved language and moved two related paragraphs 
together:

 >>> CHANGED
The value 0x00 is reserved and all values in the range 0x06 to 0xFF are
available for allocation.  The procedures for updating this table are 
those
defined as "IETF Review" in section 4.8 of [@!RFC8126].
<<<<

(That is the syntax that will produce the correct result.)

I also renamed the table to be "Message Type Values" rather than "Data 
Type Values".  Everywhere else, these are described as "message types" 
(and the table header said the same).

Paul

------ Original Message ------
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Sent: 5/20/2021 3:20:54 AM
Subject: [Perc] AD review of draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel

>Hi all,
>
>I've completed my AD review of this document.  The only feedback I 
>think I'd like to call out here before issuing an IETF Last Call is a 
>few points about Section 8:
>
>* the last line has an "if" instead of an "of"
>
>* the RFC reference right after that appears funny ("[!@RFC####]"); did 
>it not render correctly?
>
>* saying the remaining range is "reserved for future reservations" 
>seems contradictory to me; "reserved" usually means "not available", 
>but I actually think you mean "available" for new registrations that 
>pass IETF Review, correct?
>
>-MSK