Last Call Review of draft-ietf-regext-org-10
review-ietf-regext-org-10-genart-lc-bryant-2018-10-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-regext-org
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-10-08
Requested 2018-09-24
Other Reviews Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Charlie Kaufman (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Stewart Bryant
Review review-ietf-regext-org-10-genart-lc-bryant-2018-10-08
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/wz99CZAresuxelI7syqyRrjr3kA
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 12)
Review result Ready with Issues
Draft last updated 2018-10-08
Review completed: 2018-10-08

Review
review-ietf-regext-org-10-genart-lc-bryant-2018-10-08

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-org-10
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2018-10-08
IETF LC End Date: 2018-10-08
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

This is a well written document, and ready for publication.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: 
The RFC 2718 normative reference is a bit strange to one that does not normally work in this area. RFC 2718 has been obsoleted, and this is covered by it being called out in the IETF LC. However RFC 2718 is called out because the text requires a reference to UTF-16, and there is apparently no reference to it other than the obsolete RFC 2718 text. This makes me wonder why this document requires support of the format.

Perhaps a comment on this might be useful to other puzzled readers.

In Section  3.6 the text says: "Loops SHOULD be prohibited."

I am surprised this is not a MUST, since SHOULD means that clients need to make the test whenever they used the repository and were worried about this, whereas MUST would mean that the server makes the test once.

Nits/editorial comments: 

Nits points out an issue with the RFC2119 boiler plate and also a line too long, but these will be fixed by the RFC Editor as a matter of course.