Last Call Review of draft-arkko-trip-registry-update-00
review-arkko-trip-registry-update-00-opsdir-lc-pignataro-2018-12-03-00

Request Review of draft-arkko-trip-registry-update
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 01)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-12-28
Requested 2018-11-30
Draft last updated 2018-12-03
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -00 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -01 by Robert Sparks
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Shawn Emery
Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Carlos Pignataro
Assignment Reviewer Carlos Pignataro
State Completed
Review review-arkko-trip-registry-update-00-opsdir-lc-pignataro-2018-12-03
Reviewed rev. 00 (document currently at 01)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2018-12-03

Review
review-arkko-trip-registry-update-00-opsdir-lc-pignataro-2018-12-03

In reviewing this document as part of the Ops Directorate, I wanted to raise a couple of minor issues -- more than nits, less than issues.

First, this is a focused well-written document, and I've no concerns and no operational or manageability issues.

Issues:
1. [RFC8126] is referenced but not cited.
2. The interesting thing here is that, while this document is updating the IANA rules for a specific registration, RFC 8126 says:
 "However, requests must
   include a minimal amount of clerical information, such as a point of
   contact (including an email address, and sometimes a postal address)
   and a brief description of how the value will be used.  "

So the main question I have is: is there a need or desire to take a broader position or a deeper fix?

I do not know the history that triggered the writing of this I-D -- but the authors should discuss and introspect on whether those reasons apply more broadly beyond these two registries.

Thanks,

Carlos.