Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
It seems the comment from the Gen-ART review was not addressed: "1. Introduction Part five of the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS), RFC 3405 [RFC3405], describes the registration procedures for assignments in URI.ARPA. The document requires that registrations be in the "IETF tree" of URI registrations. The use of URI scheme name trees was defined in RFC 2717 [RFC2717] but discontinued by RFC 4395 [RFC4395]. Since the use of trees was discontinued, there is no way in the current process set out in BCP 35 [RFC7595] to meet the requirement." This is indeed a nit, but I'd prefer s/the requirement/the above requirement/. The current text did make me briefly think "Which requirement?".
Section 1 I suggest mentioning somehow in the prose that RFC 4395 was obsoleted by RFC 7595, to establish the last link in the chain leading to "the current process"; in the current form the RFC 7595 reference seems to lack any preceding motivation. (I also agree with the Gen-ART reviewer that spelling out "the requirement" more explicitly would be helpful; that suggestion seems to have gotten lost in the ensuing thread.)