I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-dccp-ccid4-04.txt Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email protected]> Review Date: 6-June-2009 IETF LC End Date: 22-June-2009Summary: The document is ready for publication as an experimental RFC. I have one question with respect to the IANA registration of new codes (see below)
Major issues: none Minor issues:- In Sections 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, etc., the draft indicates that the IANA registration of new codes requires "IESG review, approval, and standards-track IETF RFC publication". Considering that THIS draft is in the experimental category, is it reasonable to ask future codes to be on the standards (and not experimental) track for registration of new codes. In other words, this draft does not even qualify itself for registration of its own codes!
I think the policy should be according to "Specification Required" (see RFC 5226.
Nits/editorial comments:- A Caption to the figure in Section 8.7 would be nice. For example: "Figure 1: Dropped Packets Option". The same applies to the two figures in Section 8.7.1.
/Miguel -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
