The Management Policy of the Resource Priority Header (RPH) Registry Changed to "IETF Review"
draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy-01

Thanks for an admirably short document.

I think the Abstract would be clearer by not stating the old management
policies because when you do so, there is ambiguity about what the 
resultant policy is (you have a statement that the policy is foo and a
statement that the policy is changed to bar). I suggest...

   This document updates RFC 4412 by changing tha IANA management policy
   of the "Resource-Priority Namespaces" and "Resource-Priority 
   Priority-values" registries to "IETF Review".

---

Similarly in the Introduction

OLD
   The management policy of these
   registries is "Standards Action" as defined in [RFC5226].
NEW
   The management policy of these
   registries defined by RFC 4412 was "Standards Action" as defined in
   [RFC5226].
END

ti -> to in the abstract.

OLD:

   RFC4412 defines "Resource-Priority Namespaces" and "Resource-Priority
   Priority-values" registries.  The management policy of these
   registries is "Standards Action".  This document normatively updates
   RFC4412 ti change the management policy of these registries to "IETF
   Review".

NEW:
   RFC4412 defines "Resource-Priority Namespaces" and "Resource-Priority
   Priority-values" registries.  The management policy of these
   registries is "Standards Action".  This document normatively updates
   RFC4412 to change the management policy of these registries to "IETF
   Review".

I'm waiting to see the response to Brian Carpenter's Gen-ART review question.

I like Adrian's suggestion ...

4412 section 9 says: 

"A new namespace MUST be defined in a Standards Track
RFC, following the 'Standards Action' policy in
[RFC2434], and MUST include the following facets:..."

Followed by a long list. Does this mean that that second
MUST still applies, but those need to be stated in the
registration?  If yes, that's fine but worth saying. If
no, then it definitely needs saying because someone could
ask where all those things are defined.

And one of those things is the IETF reference document,
so I'm not sure what we're saving here really if we still
need an RFC.

But I guess there's a reason.