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 revision | No specific revision (document currently at 01) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2018-12-28 | |
| Requested | 2018-11-30 | |
| Authors | Jari Arkko , Ted Hardie | |
| 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 M 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 revision | 00 (document currently at 01) | |
| Result | Has Issues | |
| Completed | 2018-12-03 |
review-arkko-trip-registry-update-00-opsdir-lc-pignataro-2018-12-03-00
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.