> > 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).
>
> I defer entirely to Joel Jaeggli, the sponsoring AD.

I'm happy to leave that decision up to Joel.

I'm concerned about readers who aren't as
cognizant of and comfortable/familiar with the relationships among
OUIs and the identifiers based on them as people like you and me.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 2:07 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: joe.ab...@icann.org; General Area Review Team; joe...@bogus.com;
> ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-03
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Black, David <david.bl...@emc.com> wrote:
> > The -03 version of this draft resolves all of the concerns raised by
> > the Gen-ART review of the -02 version.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > 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-:
> 
> My apologies, you are correct. However, I believe that, in context,
> the typo is pretty obvious.
> 
> >    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).
> 
> I defer entirely to JoelJaeggli, the sponsoring AD.
> 
> I'd be happy to submit a -04 or it seems to me it could easily be
> fixed with an RFC Editor Note or at AUTH48 time. (Actually, it seems
> likely to me that during IESG consideration, some other change will be
> decided on and this can be fixed at the same time.)
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  d3e...@gmail.com
> 
> > 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
> >> ----------------------------------------------------
> >

Reply via email to