Last Call Review of draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00
review-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00-genart-lc-sparks-2014-07-20-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 02)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-07-25
Requested 2014-07-03
Other Reviews Genart Telechat review of -00 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -00 by Carl Wallace (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -00 by Melinda Shore (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Robert Sparks
Review review-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00-genart-lc-sparks-2014-07-20
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/cVudJur5aZN7hDeSXTzaYILAOTE
Reviewed rev. 00 (document currently at 02)
Review result Ready with Issues
Draft last updated 2014-07-20
Review closed: 2014-07-20

Review
review-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00-genart-lc-sparks-2014-07-20

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-isis-tlv-codepoints-00
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 20-Jul-2014
IETF LC End Date: 25-Jul-2014
IESG Telechat date: 7-Aug-2014

Summary: Basically ready for publication, but with process nits for the 
group and the IESG to consider

Thanks for assembling such a clearly written document.

The shepherd writeup should have discussed _why_ this document is 
intended for Proposed Standard.
There is no protocol definition here, and nothing to progress on the 
standards ladder. This is, instead,
primarily defining process. Why isn't this being progressed as a BCP?

Should this Update any of the RFCs that previously defined these registries?