Last Call Review of draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25

Request Review of draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 32)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-04-11
Requested 2019-03-21
Authors Ines Robles, Michael Richardson, Pascal Thubert
Draft last updated 2019-04-03
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -25 by Henning Rogge (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -25 by Daniel Migault (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -25 by Colin Perkins (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -25 by Russ Housley (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Russ Housley
State Completed
Review review-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25-genart-lc-housley-2019-04-03
Reviewed rev. 25 (document currently at 32)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2019-04-03


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-roll-useofrplinfo-25
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2019-04-03
IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-11
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready with Nits

Major Concerns:


Minor Concerns:

Section 1 says:

   ... This document clarifies examples that intend to
   illustrate the result of the normative language in RFC8200 and
   RFC6553.  In other words, the examples are intended to be normative
   explanation of the results of executing that language.

This set the wrong expectation for me.  What the document seems to
be doing is aligning with the recent normative change in RFC8200.  The
alignment could lead to a flag day, and this document suggests a way to
avoid a flag day.  It goes through a whole bunch of use cases to
illustrate the updates.


In Table 6, please move some of the whitespace on the right to the first
column to avoid so many words being split across lines.