Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-rosen-rfcefdp-update-2026-01
review-rosen-rfcefdp-update-2026-01-genart-lc-fossati-2022-02-10-00

Request Review of draft-rosen-rfcefdp-update-2026
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 02)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2022-03-07
Requested 2022-02-09
Requested by Lars Eggert
Authors Brian Rosen
I-D last updated 2022-02-10
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Magnus Nyström (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -01 by Thomas Fossati (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -01 by Wassim Haddad (diff)
Iotdir Last Call review of -01 by Ines Robles (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -01 by Dr. Bernard D. Aboba (diff)
Comments
We're trying to maximize the reviews for documents associated with the change in the RFC Editor model. Hence the request to review these pretty short documents, even though they may not need a review from a technical perspective.
Assignment Reviewer Thomas Fossati
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-rosen-rfcefdp-update-2026 by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/voTyowjr6sbjGvBRAyAepl4bLLg
Reviewed revision 01 (document currently at 02)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2022-02-10
review-rosen-rfcefdp-update-2026-01-genart-lc-fossati-2022-02-10-00
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-rosen-rfcefdp-update-2026-??
Reviewer: Thomas Fossati
Review Date: 2022-02-10
IETF LC End Date: 2022-03-07
IESG Telechat date: 2022-03-10

Summary:

Major issues:

   "[...] Accordingly, in
   [RFC2026] Section 2.6, the sentence "RFC publication is the direct
   responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the general direction of the
   IAB" is deleted."

The referenced section should be 2.1.

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

   "It no longer the responsibility of the RFC Editor"

Should probably be "It is no longer [...]"?