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 rev. 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
Draft last updated 2020-08-31
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Nancy Cam-Winget (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Carpenter 
State Completed
Review review-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03-genart-lc-carpenter-2020-08-31
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/hTuaNbzyqMkJozUqDgwVxicI1z0
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 04)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2020-08-31

Review
review-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03-genart-lc-carpenter-2020-08-31

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?".