Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format-10
review-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format-10-genart-lc-taylor-2014-12-09-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 14) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2014-12-16 | |
Requested | 2014-12-04 | |
Authors | Adam W. Montville , David L. Black | |
I-D last updated | 2014-12-09 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -10
by Tom Taylor
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Dacheng Zhang (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Stefan Winter (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Tom Taylor |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 14) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2014-12-09 |
review-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format-10-genart-lc-taylor-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>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format-10 Reviewer: Tom Taylor Review Date: 9/12/2014 IETF LC End Date: 16/12/2014 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: Basically a well-written document with tiny nits. The "major issue" may simply be a matter of my inexperience with XML schemas. Major issues: I am having a hard time reconciling the extension procedures specified in Section 5 of RFC 5070 [IODEF] with the content of the draft. As I see it, you have added an attribute to ReferenceName, and this is actually not covered by RFC 5070. As I understand it, 5.1 covers ENUMs and 5.2 covers new classes. My conclusion is that this document should update RFC 5070, describing how to add new attributes -- or is that the equivalent of adding a new class? Even if it were a simple matter of adding ENUMs, where are the ext- declarations called for by Section 5.1 of RFC 5070? Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: Tiny nit, third paragraph of Security Considerations: s/third-party/third party/ (three times) Former is an adjective, but contecxt requires a noun. The last sentence of the IANA Considerations section has a forward reference to Section 6 which should instead be Section 5.