Re: [regext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis-02

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 9:56 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis-02
> 
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
> is safe.
> 
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> 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://secure-
> web.cisco.com/1it8MJTs4lDbEREI1LQUNZG_Vva3pasdIc3nRXd93eAnKO8pL8c
> lDx4Pi8a3pUnd3OVSqlbrXmmDSW-cnl-
> drNV5DHXN5gw1Npy1iJSih3_ipEMV7vNnaGP5-
> xZZa3jEPY2vvgjozipMQ3VYc8FH9KLjjtG15P42IhohN4F6FNircOBH-
> qBAVcH4V5Q8VuX4tccIue67ds7aJR4tEXZ3vl23e0ZnfU3MQ7ZPbsUa3PhYmfF-
> HIbzG5Chx6gVnpuoOzskOilbIifyT6kuRFu54mQ/https%3A%2F%2Ftrac.ietf.org
> %2Ftrac%2Fgen%2Fwiki%2FGenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis-02
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review Date: 2021-02-04
> IETF LC End Date: 2021-02-08
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This Document is Ready with one issue that I would suggest to clarify and
> possibly apply edits before approval.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> If my understanding is correct this document together with 7483bis will
> replace RFC 7482 and RFC 7483 and advance them to Internet Standard.
> Sections 7 and 8 will be taken out from the final published RFC. I believe that
> the relationship with RFC 7482 needs to be detailed either in the Introduction
> or in a dedicated version, in order to clarify for future readers and users the
> status of the 2 /
> 4 documents. I also believe that a shortened version of the 'Changes from
> RFC 7482' section now an Appendix should be included in the text of the
> document in its final form.

Dan, thanks for the review. Would you please give me a little more on what you think is needed to explain the relationship between the two documents? I can't think of much more to say beyond "7482 describes protocol queries" and "7483 describes protocol responses to the queries described in 7482", but would adding a few sentences to that effect in the Introduction do what you're suggesting? Of course, the RFC numbers will need to be updated.

Scott