Disclosure: Mark Davis, co-editor of draft-ietf-ltru-registry,
works for the same employer as me, but in a different department.

Editorial nit from Gen-ART review by Elwyn Davies:

The new title of Figure 2 should be 'Registry Record Format' and not
'record-jar format' (which it isn't in any case).

I think that as this draft is structured today, it needs to be a BCP.
I do share the concerns of those who believe we may have gotten
something wrong and that we wish we had a good mechanism for
incremental updates or for progression.  I don't think calling this a
proposed standard gives us any of those things; it just confuses what
is going on.  I hope we're right with this draft or the mess will be
impressive.

I'd like to thank Scott and the WG chairs for all the hard work in
dealing with the /last call.  I found the summary absolutely essential
to reviewing the discussion.  I did end up going back and reading most
of the messages, but the summary was quite useful in focusing my
efforts.

I explicitly evaluated the security concern regarding privacy and
information exposure through tags. q I think the current text in
security considerations is appropriate for that issue.

  In section 3 of draft-ietf-ltru-initial-05, it might be useful for the
  document to include the URL of the IANA registry.  It seems to me that
  anyone interested in this document will want to locate the IANA
  registry too.