Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20
review-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20-genart-lc-even-2019-10-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 24)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-11-06
Requested 2019-10-23
Authors Marcelo Bagnulo , Benoît Claise , Philip Eardley , Al Morton , Aamer Akhter
I-D last updated 2019-10-29
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -20 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -20 by Liang Xia (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/GrsXYg2_W9F7Z9onvuwoeQGIbUE
Reviewed revision 20 (document currently at 24)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2019-10-29
review-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20-genart-lc-even-2019-10-29-00
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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-??
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2019-10-29
IETF LC End Date: 2019-11-06
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:
The document is almost ready for publication as a BCP document

Major issues:

Minor issues:
1. From reading the document it looks to me that the registration policy 
should be specification required which also requires expert review. 2. My
understanding is that for registration a document is required , not necessarily
and RFC, but in multiple places in the document ( 7.3, 7.3.1, 8.2 ,...) the
text talks about RFC and not document. 3. I am not sure if section 6 is needed
in the published document based on its content. If it will remain then in 6.1
first paragraph the reference should be to section 5 and not to section 6. 4.
In sections 10.2 and 10.3 there are guidance taken from this document. I think
that the for IANA it should say in the registry note that the registration must
comply with RFCXXX (this document), I assume that there is no need to repeat
all this text in these sections in the registry note.

Nits/editorial comments: