Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-26

Request Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 27)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-10-17
Requested 2018-10-03
Authors Gonzalo Camarillo, Tom Kristensen, Christer Holmberg
Draft last updated 2018-10-18
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -26 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -26 by David Mandelberg (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Pete Resnick 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-26-genart-lc-resnick-2018-10-18
Reviewed rev. 26 (document currently at 27)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2018-10-18


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


Document: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-26
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2018-10-18
IETF LC End Date: 2018-10-17
IESG Telechat date: 2018-10-25

Summary: Ready, but one issue with the IANA Considerations section.

I reviewed the diff with 4583. The changes were easily understandable and the improvements were obvious. Well done. No major issues at all. I think section 13 isn't as clear as it ought to be, but not a showstopper. A couple of nits noted.

Major issues: None.

Minor issues:

13: I found this section confusing. You could just explain this interactively with IANA, as I suspect they will find it confusing too, but I'd suggest:

- Where you need to have IANA do something new, identify that to IANA as "IANA is requested to register...", replacing "This document defines" in 13.6.

- For the remainder, identify those with "IANA has registered...", replacing "This document defined" in 13.2 through 13.5. You can put a parenthetical note next to each one that says, "No new IANA action requested here"

This all gets cleaned up by the RFC Editor anyway, but the whole idea of the IANA Considerations is to make it clear what IANA needs to do, not format the section for what it should look like when published.

Finally, I don't see a need for the "contact" bit. This is going to be a standards track document, and that is always the case for standards track documents.

Nits/editorial comments:


- Table 1 contains "c-s", but it has not yet been explained. I would move it below the subsequent paragraph.

- In the paragraph that begins, "Endpoints compliant with [RFC4583]", the comma in the second sentence belongs after "present", not "client".


- In the section title, s/Attributes/Attribute