P-Access-Network-Info ABNF Update
draft-holmberg-dispatch-pani-abnf-03

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-holmberg-dispatch-pani-abnf-02.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: ben@nostrum.com, draft-holmberg-dispatch-pani-abnf@ietf.org, gsalguei@cisco.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (P-Access-Network-Info ABNF Update) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'P-Access-Network-Info ABNF Update'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-02-11. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document updates RFC 7315, by modifying the extension-access-
  info part of the P-Access-Network-Info header field Augmented Backus-
  Naur Form (ABNF).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-holmberg-dispatch-pani-abnf/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-holmberg-dispatch-pani-abnf/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

This is my AD Evaluation of draft-holmberg-dispatch-pani-abnf. I have a couple of minor comments, neither of which need delay IETF Last Call:

-1, 3rd sentence:
The sentence sounds like you are saying 5234 requires new values to follow gen-value. I think you mean that 7315 requires that, right?

-2: Are there any 2119 keywords in this draft? If not, please delete the 2119 boilerplate and reference.