Last Call Review of draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis-05

Request Review of draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-05-26
Requested 2017-04-28
Authors Mark Nottingham
Draft last updated 2017-05-24
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Carlos Martínez (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Alan DeKok (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Stewart Bryant
State Completed
Review review-nottingham-rfc5988bis-05-genart-lc-bryant-2017-05-24
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 08)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2017-05-24


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-nottingham-rfc5988bis-??
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2017-05-24
IETF LC End Date: 2017-05-26
IESG Telechat date: 2017-06-08

This is a well written document, and ready for publication.

I found an IANA consideration a little confusing, but I am sure that either IANA understand it or will ask for clarification.

Major issues:

Minor issues:
I found the IANA considerations confusing. Specifically it looks like Section 4.1 refers to
although it does not say so in so many words.

Assuming that to be the case the IANA text in section 4.1 (which copies the text from RFC5688)
does not line up column by column with the text in the registry. I assume that 
[RFC&rfc.number;] means [This RFC], but do not see where Author/Change control fits in the 

Nits/editorial comments: 

In the intro and the abstract the text "a model for indicate the relationships" is not good grammar.