Last Call Review of draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token-09
review-ietf-regext-allocation-token-09-genart-lc-yee-2018-08-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-08-03
Requested 2018-07-14
Other Reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Al Morton (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by David Mandelberg (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Peter Yee
Review review-ietf-regext-allocation-token-09-genart-lc-yee-2018-08-05
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/D6OimUHd8qp1wVgR-9-v681HNsc
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 12)
Review result Ready with Nits
Draft last updated 2018-08-05
Review completed: 2018-08-05

Review
review-ietf-regext-allocation-token-09-genart-lc-yee-2018-08-05

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-ietf-regext-allocation-token-09
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: 2018-08-05
IETF LC End Date: 2018-08-03
IESG Telechat date: 2018-08-16

Summary: The draft is ready with a nit and a question.  

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues: 

Page 6, 1st line: how is the client expected to differentiate between the two reasons behind this response, so that it can remedy the problem?  [I'm not sure this is considered much of a problem, so ignore this question if the handing is well understood in the community.]

Nits/editorial comments: 

Page 9, 1st partial paragraph, 2nd line: change "auhorization" to "authorization".