[RTG-DIR] rtg-dir review of draft-cotton-rfc4020bis-01.txt
Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Sat, 31 August 2013 12:44 UTC
Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E0511E80FC for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 05:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oJ5oo1Cg2eMn for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 05:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0C2111E80F8 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 05:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.5.60] (81-229-83-119-no65.business.telia.com [81.229.83.119]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 201F018014F6; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 14:44:06 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5221E516.5010907@pi.nu>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 14:44:06 +0200
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org, rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-cotton-rfc4020bis.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [RTG-DIR] rtg-dir review of draft-cotton-rfc4020bis-01.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 12:44:14 -0000
All, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-cotton-rfc4020bis-01.txt Reviewer: Loa Andersson Review Date: 2013-08-31 IETF LC End 2013-09-24 Intended Status: Best Current Practice Summary: I have one major and some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. Comments: The document is very well written and clear. There is one thing I've thought about marking registries as open for early allocation. Some registries, e.g.: BGP Error Subcodes RFC 4271 Standards Action (Early Allocation available per RFC 4020) Are marked that they are available that they are open for early allocation. While others - that I understand is also open for early allocation e.g.: MPLS Fault OAM Flag Registry RFC 6427 Standards Action are not. I wonder if we wonder if we should request that IANA mark all registries (or part of the registries) that are open for early allocation the same way. Major Issues: Section 3.2 "Expiry" I've recently shepherded a document for which the temporary allocation were made 2007 and was supposed expire 20078; however the allocations are still there. And no harm done. Existing practice is that the early allocation stays until permanently allocated or until the working group chairs to delete them. I think it would be better to document the existing practice. I think it would be enough if the expiry section says: "Once an temporary assignment is made it stays in the registry until the document for which they were made becomes an RFC, or until they are removed by working group chairs or the ADs. IANA may request from working groups chairs if an early allocation should remain in the registry or not." Minor Issues: There has been some comments on the IETF mailing list; SM stumbled over the same words in section 2 as I did '"Specification Required" (where an RFC will be used as the stable reference)' I support Barry Leiba's resolution of that comment. Eric Rosen has also commented on the draft; however I believe that the draft the right approach as it is today. Section 1 - line 3-4: "Many of these code point spaces have registries..." Comment: I find it hard to follow the nomenclature sometimes, registry - name space - code point space. What are the relationships and differences. Nits: - /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
- [RTG-DIR] rtg-dir review of draft-cotton-rfc4020b… Loa Andersson
- Re: [RTG-DIR] rtg-dir review of draft-cotton-rfc4… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [RTG-DIR] rtg-dir review of draft-cotton-rfc4… Loa Andersson
- Re: [RTG-DIR] rtg-dir review of draft-cotton-rfc4… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [RTG-DIR] rtg-dir review of draft-cotton-rfc4… Loa Andersson