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 rev. 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
Other Reviews Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Dacheng Zhang (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Stefan Winter (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Tom Taylor
Review review-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format-10-genart-lc-taylor-2014-12-09
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg11021.html
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 14)
Review result Ready with Issues
Draft last updated 2014-12-09
Review completed: 2014-12-09

Review
review-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format-10-genart-lc-taylor-2014-12-09

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.