Last Call Review of draft-nottingham-rfc5785bis-08
review-nottingham-rfc5785bis-08-genart-lc-kline-2019-02-05-00

Request Review of draft-nottingham-rfc5785bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-02-05
Requested 2019-01-08
Draft last updated 2019-02-05
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Kathleen Moriarty (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Erik Kline (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Erik Kline
State Completed
Review review-nottingham-rfc5785bis-08-genart-lc-kline-2019-02-05
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2019-02-05

Review
review-nottingham-rfc5785bis-08-genart-lc-kline-2019-02-05

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-nottingham-rfc5785bis-??
Reviewer: Erik Kline
Review Date: 2019-02-05
IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-05
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

Seems generally ready to go, but I have a few questions.  I apologize if these don't many any sense in the proper context of this document.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: 

[1] I assume the URIs in 6.3 are also meant to be deleted upon publication?

[2] WRT to the final lines of 5.1:

    [a] "Replace all references to RFC 5988 in that registry have been replaced..." doesn't scan well, I think.

    [b] If the IANA repo in question is https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known-uris.xhtml, I don't see any mention of 5988 in there.

[3] Naive question: do we want a statement about reserving/agreeing to never allocate "example" in the .well-known space?