Telechat Review of draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-04
review-eastlake-rfc5342bis-04-genart-telechat-black-2013-08-09-00

Request Review of draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-08-13
Requested 2013-07-05
Authors Donald Eastlake, Joe Abley
Draft last updated 2013-08-09
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-04-genart-telechat-black-2013-08-09
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2013-08-09

Review
review-eastlake-rfc5342bis-04-genart-telechat-black-2013-08-09

The -04 version of this draft resolves the typo/thinko that snuck into
the -03 version, and fixed a number of related instances of that problem
that I missed in that review.

The -04 version of this draft is ready for publication as a BCP RFC.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David
> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 1:47 PM
> To: d3e3e3 at gmail.com; joe.abley at icann.org; General Area Review Team
> Cc: joelja at bogus.com; ietf at ietf.org; Black, David
> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-03
> 
> The -03 version of this draft resolves all of the concerns raised by
> the Gen-ART review of the -02 version.
> 
> Unfortunately, a serious typo/thinko snuck into the -03 version (been
> there, done that, myself).  Section 3.2 currently says:
> 
>    00-42 is a protocol number under the IANA OUI (that is,
>    00-00-0E-00-42) to be used for documentation purposes.
> 
> The parenthetical expansion of the protocol number is incorrect.
> The correct expansion uses -5E- instead of -0E-:
> 
>    00-42 is a protocol number under the IANA OUI (that is,
>    00-00-5E-00-42) to be used for documentation purposes.
> 
> I strongly suggest submitting a -04 version of this draft to make
> the necessary single character correction (e.g., as opposed to using
> a RFC Editor Note for that purpose).
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Black, David
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 6:13 PM
> > To: d3e3e3 at gmail.com; joe.abley at icann.org; General Area Review Team
> > Cc: Black, David; joelja at bogus.com; ietf at ietf.org
> > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02
> >
> > 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
> > ----------------------------------------------------