Last Call Review of draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-09
review-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-09-genart-lc-dupont-2019-12-27-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-12-25
Requested 2019-12-11
Authors Pierre Pfister, √Čric Vyncke, Tommy Pauly, David Schinazi, Wenqin Shao
Draft last updated 2019-12-27
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -01 by Zhen Cao (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -01 by Tim Chown (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Phillip Hallam-Baker (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -09 by Russ White (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -09 by Martin Duke (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Tim Chown (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Review review-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-09-genart-lc-dupont-2019-12-27
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/QxfjdkE6wriBQ_bx8zlbEOXhqwI
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2019-12-27

Review
review-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-09-genart-lc-dupont-2019-12-27

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-09.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20191220
IETF LC End Date: 20191225
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - 3.1 page 6: the real purpose of the R-flag / inclusion of a RA header
  could be explained before examples of section 5, for instance in the
  introduction...

 - 3.4 page 10,3.4.3 page 11 (3 times) and 6 page 22 : e.g. -> e.g.,

 - 4.4 page 17: I understand the text about the Subject Name (so it
  is not a minor issue) but RFC 5280 defines the Subject as a X.500
  Distinguished Name so IMHO you mean the Subject Alternative Name.
  I propose to add "(Alternative)" between "Subject" and "Name" so
  the text should become fully correct without introducing extra /
  spurious details.

 - 8.3 page 24: Bit position 0, 1 and 2 are reserved -> assigned

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr