Subject: [Pals] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 03:57:33 -0700

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

8.3. PW Status Refresh Reduction Notification Codes

   IANA needs to set up a registry of "PW status refresh reduction
   Notification Codes". These are 32-bit values. Type value 0 through 7
   are defined in this document. Type values 8 through 65536, and
   134,217,729 through 4,294,967,294 are to be assigned by IANA using
   the "Expert Review" policy defined in RFC5226. Type values 65536
   through 134,217,728, 0 and 4,294,967,295 are to be allocated using
   the IETF review policy defined in [RFC5226].

   For each value assigned IANA should also track whether the value
   constitutes an error as described in Section 5.1. When values are
   assigned by IETF Review, the setting of this column must be
   documented in the RFC that requests the allocation. For Expert
Review
   and FCFS assignments, the setting of this column must be made clear
   by the requester at the time of assignment.

FCFS policy is not used in this document, so it shouldn't be mentioned.
Or possibly you meant "IETF Review" here?