Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2023-10-12
Requested 2023-09-28
Authors Donald E. Eastlake 3rd , Joe Abley , Yizhou Li
I-D last updated 2023-10-06
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Dale R. Worley (diff)
Dnsdir Last Call review of -09 by Patrick Mevzek (diff)
Dnsdir Last Call review of -10 by Patrick Mevzek (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dale R. Worley
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 11)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2023-10-06
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


Document:  draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-09
Reviewer:  Dale R. Worley
Review Date:  2023-10-06
IETF LC End Date:  2023-10-12
IESG Telechat date:  [unknown]


    This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
    should be fixed before publication.

Nits/editorial comments:

In section 3. Ethernet Protocol Parameters, it says

   Using this EtherType, a frame body can begin with


   where yy-yy-yy and zz-zz have the same meaning as in the SNAP format
   described above.

Since the previous paragraph notes for another format "The five-octet
length for such OUI-based protocol identifiers results ... in the
preservation of 16-bit alignment.", it might be worth stating
explicitly that the EtherType 88B7 format does not preserve 16-bit

The largest item is the handling of the references to the various
registries, which seem to be inconsistent.  It's possible that the
variations in how they are referenced is based on some references
being defining/authoritative and others not, but I did not spot any
consistent pattern.

Looking for "web page", "registry", "address family", and "table" gets
40+ hits, most of which are references to specific IANA registries.
My current opinion is that these ideally should be proper references
in the document, with the reference giving the canonical registry name
and the full IANA URL, e.g. "SNAP Protocol Numbers,".

Currently, only two registries are given full references:

              IANA, "Ethernet Numbers",

   [PPPNum]   IANA, "PPP Numbers",

But perhaps there are too many registries mentioned to make that