Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06
review-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06-genart-lc-holmberg-2014-12-09-00

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>

Document:                       draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06.txt

Reviewer:                       Christer Holmberg

Review Date:                   9 December 2014

IETF LC End Date:       15 December 2014

IETF Telechat Date:             18 December 2014

Summary:                        The document is well written, and almost ready.
I do have a few editorial comments on the Abstract and Introduction, and a
general editorial comment.

Major Issues: None

Minor Issues: None

Editorial nits:

General:
----------

Q_1:

        In Section 2, the IETF reply text sometimes uses "we" to refer to IETF.
        I think it would be good to say "IETF".

        For example:

                "We consider .ARPA part" -> "IETF considers .ARPA part"
                "...few cases where we may further..." -> "...few cases where
                IETF may further..."

                Etc.

        This may not be seen needed when reading the draft, but it will be
        useful if e.g. the IETF reply text is quoted elsewhere.

Abstract:
------------

Q_2:

        I think it would be good if the Abstract also would indicate that the
        LS was primarily sent to ICANN. Currently the text only says that an LS
        was sent somewhere, and that IETF was invited to reply.

Q_3:

        The last sentence of the Abstract says: "The IETF community is invited
        to comment and propose changes to this document."

        It is unclear what "this document" refers to. If it refers to the
        aggregate proposal mentioned earlier, I think that should be more clear.

Introduction:
---------------

Q_4:

        In the 1st paragraph, I think it would be good to indicate that IETF
        was invited to reply to the LS.