Last Call Review of draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02
review-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02-genart-lc-black-2013-06-05-00

Request Review of draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-06-04
Requested 2013-05-08
Authors Donald Eastlake, Joe Abley
Draft last updated 2013-06-05
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by David Black (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by David Black (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Charlie Kaufman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer David Black 
State Completed
Review review-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02-genart-lc-black-2013-06-05
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2013-06-05

Review
review-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02-genart-lc-black-2013-06-05

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.black at emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------