[apps-discuss] Appsdir review of draft-ietf-mile-template-04

Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com> Tue, 15 May 2012 16:02 UTC

From: Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: "Apps Discuss (apps-discuss@ietf.org)" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch" <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Thread-Topic: Appsdir review of draft-ietf-mile-template-04
Thread-Index: Ac0ysfyZRhKqc2xLRuuY6UWTVpFdIw==
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 16:02:49 +0000
Message-ID: <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA20103196E@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA20103196EP3PWEX2MB008ex2_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "The IESG (iesg@ietf.org)" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: [apps-discuss] Appsdir review of draft-ietf-mile-template-04
Precedence: list

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-mile-template-04

Title: Guidelines for Defining Extensions to IODEF

Reviewer: Eran Hammer

Review Date: 2012-05-14

IETF Last Call Date:

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Informational

Major Issues:

1. I found the title of this document to be somewhat misleading. It is really an extension template more than guidelines for extensibility. I would suggest working the word 'template' into the title.

2. The template in appendix A is really the heart of this document. It was surprising to find in an appendix. Suggest it is moved to a numbered section.

3. Section A.6 mentions a few registries. I was expecting such a mention to appear earlier in the document when discussing the overall extension mechanism.

Minor Issues:

1. A.4.1 - Not clear what the section should include - it lacks guidelines and simply states facts.

None.

Nits:

1. A - It should be enough to say this template does not substitute a fully specified RFC. Listing the RFC sections not included is a bit odd.
2. A.7 - This is not necessary as you already stated this is not a guide for writing RFCs.

[apps-discuss] Appsdir review of draft-ietf-mile-… Eran Hammer