Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-fairhurst-ipdvb-ule-iana-05
review-fairhurst-ipdvb-ule-iana-05-genart-lc-yee-2014-03-01-00

Request Review of draft-fairhurst-ipdvb-ule-iana
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-02-28
Requested 2014-02-06
Authors Gorry Fairhurst
I-D last updated 2014-03-01
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Julien Laganier (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Peter E. Yee
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-fairhurst-ipdvb-ule-iana by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 07)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2014-03-01
review-fairhurst-ipdvb-ule-iana-05-genart-lc-yee-2014-03-01-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

Document: draft-fairhurst-ipdvb-ule-iana-05
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: February-27-2014
IETF LC End Date: February-28-2014
IESG Telechat date: TBD

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a Standards Track
RFC, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. [Ready with
nits.]

This document updates the IANA rules for maintenance of the ULE Next-Header
registry, as originally specified in RFC 4326.


Nits:

General nits:

Throughout the document, make all references to the registry in question
read "Next-Header registry" for consistency with RFC 4326, except in titles
or section headers where each word would be capitalized.


Specific nits:

Page 1, Title: consider inserting "Next-Header" between "ULE" and "Registry"
since that's the registry in question.

Page 1, Abstract, 2nd sentence: change "codepoints" to "code points" to
align with RFC 4259 and ATSC usage.

Page 3, Section 2.1, 1st sentence of the 1st and second paragraphs: you
refer to Mandatory Extension Headers and Optional Extension Headers
registries.  From RFC 4326, these are really subdivisions of the single
Next-Header registry.  You might want to rephrase those sentences to reflect
that you are not defining two registries.

Page 3, Section 2.1, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: Should that be "or the
specified protocol" or "of the specified protocol"?  I wasn't certain from
the context in RFC 4326 how the type values are used.

Page 3, Section 3, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: replace "these" with "them".

Page 5, 1st partial paragraph, last sentence: change "can not" to "cannot";
change "guarenteed" to "guaranteed".

Page 5, 1st full paragraph, last sentence: insert "is" between "that" and
"to".  

Page 5, Section 4, 1st paragraph: insert "an" between "record" and
"additional"

Section 8: as this section will be removed, no corrections are noted.

		-Peter Yee