Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-03
review-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-03-genart-lc-davies-2013-02-27-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-02-22
Requested 2013-02-14
Authors Jon Mitchell
I-D last updated 2013-02-27
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Sam Hartman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Elwyn B. Davies
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 05)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2013-02-27
review-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-03-genart-lc-davies-2013-02-27-00
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-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-03.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 15 February 2013
IETF LC End Date: 22 February 2013
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -

Summary: Ready for the IESG.



Nits/editorial comments:  The draft is not actually definitive about 


range of values to be allocated - the range in s10 is just a 


'suggestion'.  Who is actually making the decision about the range?






Aside: I noted that the highest possible 32 bit number (4294967295 = 


0xFFFFFFFF) is excluded from the proposed range.  This is marked as 


reserved in the IANA table but AFAICS this reserved item does not have a 


specification associated with the reservation.  This document would be 


an opportunity to explicitly mention that the topmost value is reserved 


(for future expansion? :-) )