[Drip] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-drip-registries-23

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Adam, authors, and DRIP WG,

Thank you for the -24 (just in time before the deadline ;-) ). There are several typos and a missing expansion of ICAO in the added text. Still some capitalized “Nation”.

See below for some additional comments, look for EVY>

In short, this I-D cannot proceed like it is to the IETF Last Call. Please provide a revised I-D (addressing my comments) under XML format to this list and I will submit it manually (bypassing the cut-off as DRIP is not meeting in IETF-122), the IETF Last Call could then be requested.

As written below, having ASTM reference behind a paywall will raise a lot of concerns ☹

Regards

-éric

From: Adam Wiethuechter <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 4 March 2025 at 00:51
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-drip-registries-23
Eric and WG,

I have some comments to engage on a few points.
If you are reading this after the submission deadline, version 24 will have proposed fixes for some of these in document.

For (01); I believe you and Stu reached a compromise point and no changes are needed. Confirm?
EVY> correct, too late to change the PIR acronym,
For (22); would it be better if Section 1.2 becomes Section 3.1? This is done in -24.
EVY> thanks
For (34); see revised text in -24.
EVY> please fix the typos in the added text ;-)
For (36); see revised text and CDDL in -24.
EVY> several typos in the new text
EVY> I am *deeply* concerned by a reference behind a paywall without any fee waiver for reviewers.
EVY> The authors and the DRIP WG should be ready to have this document not approved by this lack of open/free access.
EVY> One way forward would be to send a liaison statement to ASTM requesting a free copy for reviewers.
For (39); see revised text in -24.
For (40); see revised table in -24
For (41); I can reformat the file to match the form being made for (42) and provide it to IANA if that is what is desired. I can also make it an appendix in the document; however I feel this would just bloat the document with information that can be found elsewhere (i.e. IANA and/or the CSV).
EVY> there is no need to do this in the I-D, but clear instruction to IANA must be given, i.e., “based on the CSV, create entries in the registry”
For (42); see -24
For (43); I will confer with Jim on this item as he was the primary author of this section.
EVY> let’s not forget about this issue...
For (48); I am working on this item to be an appendix.
EVY> please do not forget this issue, examples should rather be in-line rather than in the appendix to facilitate the readers’ understanding

Regards

-éric

--------
73,
Adam T. Wiethuechter
Software Engineer; AX Enterprize, LLC
________________________________
From: Adam Wiethuechter <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 12:43 PM
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-drip-registries-23

Eric,

14: I was hoping Jim could add his two-cents for this item if I can link up with him before the deadline.
EVY> this is still pending :-(
25: Med has provided a commit to make this change (thanks Med).

EVY> thanks Med !

I left "Apex" as is in places where it felt it was acting as a pronoun (I think that is the correct term - English was always hard for me).
Med also pushed a commit for the "i.e." change.