Last Call Review of draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03
review-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03-genart-lc-carpenter-2020-08-31-00
| Request | Review of | draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 04) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2020-09-24 | |
| Requested | 2020-08-27 | |
| Authors | Ted Hardie | |
| I-D last updated | 2020-08-31 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -03
by Brian E. Carpenter
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Nancy Cam-Winget (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Brian E. Carpenter |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/hTuaNbzyqMkJozUqDgwVxicI1z0 | |
| Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 04) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2020-08-31 |
review-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03-genart-lc-carpenter-2020-08-31-00
Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03 Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2020-09-01 IETF LC End Date: 2020-09-24 IESG Telechat date: Summary: Ready (with micro-nit) -------- Nits: ----- > 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?".