Last Call Review of draft-kucherawy-bcp97bis-03
review-kucherawy-bcp97bis-03-genart-lc-gurbani-2022-09-22-00

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-kucherawy-bcp97bis-??
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 2022-09-22
IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-17
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document is "Ready with Issues" to be published as a BCP.

Major issues:

Minor issues:
- S1.1, first paragraph: "...subject matter in the RFC, ..."  Here, does the
"RFC" refer to the document being considered for RFC status?  Or does it refer
to the RFC in the normative reference?  I think it is the former, and if so,
perhaps better to say "... subject matter in the RFC under consideration ..."
(or "document under consideration". or even "RFC-to-be").  You hint to this
dilemma later --- in S3, where you define "source" and "target" documents. 
Another option would be to move S3 before S1 and use the "source" and "target"
terminology defined. - S1.1, top of page 4, first bullet ("If a protocol
relies..."): Perhaps better to say "If a RFC-to-be defines a protocol that
relies ..."? Or "If a target document defines a protocol that relies ...".

Nits/editorial comments:
- S4.1: s/At the option of the author/editor/At the discretion of the
author/editor/ - S4.2: s/added to the "Downref Registry"./added to the "Downref
Registry" (Section 7)./

Thanks,

- vijay