Skip to main content

Registration Procedures for Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs)
draft-pti-pen-registration-10

Yes

Murray Kucherawy
Robert Wilton
Éric Vyncke

No Objection

Erik Kline
Roman Danyliw

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

Murray Kucherawy
Yes
Paul Wouters
Yes
Comment (2022-12-13 for -09)
Two minor comments:

The document mentions https://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers but that is not a clickable link. Is this by design?
It is not even a document reference where in the reference there is a link.

        This document requires two changes to the PEN registry.

Should this be "requests" instead of "requires" ? Even though I guess it is a little odd that IANA requests IANA to do something :)
Robert Wilton
Yes
Éric Vyncke
Yes
Alvaro Retana
No Objection
Comment (2022-12-14 for -09)
No references are listed as Normative.  I find this hard to believe, given the characterization described here [1].  Please review the references and move the ones that "must be read to understand...the new RFC" to be Normative.

For example, rfc8126 is clearly a Normative reference.

[1] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
Erik Kline
No Objection
Lars Eggert
No Objection
Comment (2022-12-12 for -09)
# GEN AD review of draft-pti-pen-registration-09

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Joel Halpern for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/R-8VRNKCLe8MeOR1YBSnmmCl5cs).

## Comments

### Section 2, paragraph 2
```
     IANA maintains the PEN registry in accordance with the "First Come
     First Served" registration policy described in [RFC8126].  Values are
     assigned sequentially.
```
Is it important to specify that values are assigned sequentially?
Could that limit IANA's flexibility to deal with special cases?

### Section 2.1, paragraph 3
```
     IANA may refuse to process abusive requests.
```
First, is this different from other IANA registries? Second, is IANA
alone determining what is considered "abusive"?

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment (2022-12-12 for -09)
I have no idea why this document is needed, but presumably it is or people wouldn't have bothered writing it, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯