The -03 version of this draft resolves all of the concerns raised by the Gen-ART review of the -02 version.
Unfortunately, a serious typo/thinko snuck into the -03 version (been there, done that, myself). Section 3.2 currently says: 00-42 is a protocol number under the IANA OUI (that is, 00-00-0E-00-42) to be used for documentation purposes. The parenthetical expansion of the protocol number is incorrect. The correct expansion uses -5E- instead of -0E-: 00-42 is a protocol number under the IANA OUI (that is, 00-00-5E-00-42) to be used for documentation purposes. I strongly suggest submitting a -04 version of this draft to make the necessary single character correction (e.g., as opposed to using a RFC Editor Note for that purpose). Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Black, David > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 6:13 PM > To: d3e...@gmail.com; joe.ab...@icann.org; General Area Review Team > Cc: Black, David; joe...@bogus.com; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02 > Reviewer: David L. Black > Review Date: June 5, 2013 > IETF LC End Date: June 4, 2013 > > Summary: > This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. > > This draft updates the IANA registered Ethernet parameters for IETF use, > including recording values assigned for documentation. It also makes some > minor changes to IANA procedures. > > IANA should review this entire draft, not just its IANA Considerations > section; > Pearl Liang appears to have done that comprehensive review for IANA. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: One, the IANA review also found this issue. > > Section 3.2 states: > > IANA will assign "00-00-0E-00-42" as the protocol number under the > IANA OUI to be used for documentation purposes. > > IANA has not made this assignment, but this assignment request is not > recorded in the IANA Considerations section where IANA actions are > requested and recorded by IANA after they have been performed. This > assignment needs to be added to the IANA Considerations section; > see item 5 in the IANA review. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Section 1: This document uses an "IESG Ratification" process for some > assignments. This is not the same process as the "IESG Approval" process > defined in RFC 5226. As those names could be confused by a casual reader > who is not strongly familiar with IANA processes, I suggest adding a > statement that the "IESG Ratification" process is defined in this document > and is not the same as the "IESG Approval" process in RFC 5226. This could > be added after the sentence that cites RFC 5226. > > Section 1.4: It would be helpful to point out that there is no OUI assigned > for documentation purposes, but there are identifiers based on the IANA OUI > that have been assigned for documentation purposes. > > In general, the use of the acronym IAB for Individual Address Block is > unfortunate, but unavoidable, and this is clearly pointed out in the > definition of the IAB acronym in section 1.2. Nothing can or should be > done about this. > > idnits 2.12.17 did not find any nits. > > Thanks, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > david.bl...@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ----------------------------------------------------
