Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-arkko-trip-registry-update-00

From: Carlos Pignataro <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 09:58:08 -0800

Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
Review result: Has Issues

In reviewing this document as part of the Ops Directorate, I wanted to raise a
couple of minor issues -- more than nits, less than issues.

First, this is a focused well-written document, and I've no concerns and no
operational or manageability issues.

Issues:
1. [RFC8126] is referenced but not cited.
2. The interesting thing here is that, while this document is updating the IANA
rules for a specific registration, RFC 8126 says:
 "However, requests must
   include a minimal amount of clerical information, such as a point of
   contact (including an email address, and sometimes a postal address)
   and a brief description of how the value will be used.  "

So the main question I have is: is there a need or desire to take a broader
position or a deeper fix?

I do not know the history that triggered the writing of this I-D -- but the
authors should discuss and introspect on whether those reasons apply more
broadly beyond these two registries.

Thanks,

Carlos.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 20:03:57 +0200

Thanks for your review, Carlos!

I believe this is one issue that should be queued up (also) more generally when we look at RFC8216 revision; the advice there might need to evolve. However, that does not take away the need to make a specific fix to this specific registry.

Jari

---

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 18:05:07 +0000

Sounds great, Jari. Thank you for considering the comment!

Thanks,

— Carlos Pignataro

On Dec 3, 2018, at 1:03 PM, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Jari