Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-12-15
Requested 2014-11-28
Authors Eliot Lear, Russ Housley
Draft last updated 2014-12-09
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -06 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Sean Turner (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Melinda Shore (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06-genart-lc-holmberg-2014-12-09
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 10)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2014-12-09


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <>

Document:                      	draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06.txt

Reviewer:                      	Christer Holmberg

Review Date:                   9 December 2014

IETF LC End Date:	15 December 2014

IETF Telechat Date:       	18 December 2014

Summary:                   	The document is well written, and almost ready. I do have a few editorial comments on the Abstract and Introduction, and a general editorial comment.

Major Issues: None

Minor Issues: None

Editorial nits:



	In Section 2, the IETF reply text sometimes uses "we" to refer to IETF. I think it would be good to say "IETF".

	For example:

		"We consider .ARPA part" -> "IETF considers .ARPA part"
		"...few cases where we may further..." -> "...few cases where IETF may further..."


	This may not be seen needed when reading the draft, but it will be useful if e.g. the IETF reply text is quoted elsewhere.



	I think it would be good if the Abstract also would indicate that the LS was primarily sent to ICANN. Currently the text only says that an LS was sent somewhere, and that IETF was invited to reply.


	The last sentence of the Abstract says: "The IETF community is invited to comment and propose changes to this document."

	It is unclear what "this document" refers to. If it refers to the aggregate proposal mentioned earlier, I think that should be more clear.



	In the 1st paragraph, I think it would be good to indicate that IETF was invited to reply to the LS.