Last Call Review of draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25
review-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25-genart-lc-housley-2019-04-03-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 44) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2019-04-11 | |
| Requested | 2019-03-21 | |
| Authors | Ines Robles , Michael Richardson , Pascal Thubert | |
| Draft last updated | 2019-04-03 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -25
by
Henning Rogge
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -25 by Daniel Migault (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -25 by Colin Perkins (diff) Genart Last Call review of -25 by Russ Housley (diff) Iotdir Telechat review of -40 by Mališa Vučinić (diff) Iotdir Last Call review of -42 by Mališa Vučinić (diff) Rtgdir Last Call review of -42 by Henning Rogge (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Russ Housley |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25-genart-lc-housley-2019-04-03
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 25 (document currently at 44) | |
| Result | Ready with Nits | |
| Completed | 2019-04-03 |
review-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25-genart-lc-housley-2019-04-03-00
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 <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2019-04-03 IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-11 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready with Nits Major Concerns: None. Minor Concerns: Section 1 says: ... This document clarifies examples that intend to illustrate the result of the normative language in RFC8200 and RFC6553. In other words, the examples are intended to be normative explanation of the results of executing that language. This set the wrong expectation for me. What the document seems to be doing is aligning with the recent normative change in RFC8200. The alignment could lead to a flag day, and this document suggests a way to avoid a flag day. It goes through a whole bunch of use cases to illustrate the updates. Nits: In Table 6, please move some of the whitespace on the right to the first column to avoid so many words being split across lines.