Peter/Vince, I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-01.txt.
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Summary - this draft is almost ready for publication as a Best Common Practices RFC. It is short (6 pages), and clearly written. I have observation(s), or question(s), about the effect of certain kinds of references on BCP publication. I also have some very minor comments about specific text (mostly NITs). ======================================================================= First, while I have to agree the three references listed as Informative are what I would imagine most people could agree to be just that, it is probable that IANA cannot create the registries indicated until these references are published, and possible that IANA will not want this to be published until they can create the corresponding registries. This means that these references are essentially Normative in their effect on publication of this draft. Is IANA going to be willing to allow publication of this document as a BCP without first creating the registries? Can IANA create a registry with references to WIP? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NITs === I suggest replacing the Terminology section with the following (between "====" bars): ======================================================================= The following terms are used here with the meanings defined in BCP 26: "name space", "registration". The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in BCP 26: "First Come First Served". ======================================================================= You do not actually use the terms "assigned value", "Private Use", "Expert Review", "Specification Required", "IETF Consensus" or "Standards Action"... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In section 2 ("IANA Considerations"), first line of text, change "two name space" to "two name spaces". ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 2.1 ("Recommended Registration Policies for PPPoE TAG Values") - you might leave out "Recommended" as (assuming publication of this document) this document will define the registration policy until some other document redefines it. Saying that "a point of contact MUST be provided" - for instance - is inconsistent with a "recommendation." To tighten up the wording, the first paragraph in this section should start with "IANA SHALL ..." (as opposed to "IANA needs to ..."). Also, is it acceptable to provide a reference in lieue of a point of contact? It should be acceptable - especially given the following three observations: 1) a referenced document is likely to be more portable and useful in the long term than a point of contact, 2) most likely a referenced document will contain (or otherwise provide) contact information that is at least as likely to be useful, and 3) your own registry entries contain only referenced documents (in lieue of point of contact information). I suggest rewording the last two paragraphs (prior to section 2.2) something like this: "A TAG-Name, and a point of contact or a specification description (if any exists) MUST be provided for any assignment from this registry." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For section 2.3 - similar to the above for section 2.1 (removing "Recommended", re-wording, etc.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Section numbering is funky in section 4/4.1 - I recommend having a "References" section (section 4) and sub-sections 4.1 and 4.2 for normative/informative (assuming both remain)... -- Eric _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
