[apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-housley-ltans-oids-00

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 25 July 2013 09:46 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:45:55 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <226664B3-428E-46F1-A3A4-EC743F28C4F2@tzi.org>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org Discuss" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, draft-housley-ltans-oids.all@tools.ietf.org
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-housley-ltans-oids-00
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-housley-ltans-oids-00

Title: Object Identifier Registry for the
              Long-Term Archive and Notary Services (LTANS) Working Group

Reviewer: Carsten Bormann
Review Date: 2013-07-25
IESG Telechat Date: 2013-08-15
IETF Last Call Expires: 2013-07-31

* Summary: The document is almost ready for publication, but may need
the addition of some guidance for the IANA expert review.

The document nicely and accessibly summarizes the status of
ASN.1 OIDs assigned for LTANS and establishes IANA registration
policies for some arcs.

* Major:

As with all registries that specify Expert Review:
Is there any guidance for the designated expert?
I.e., what is the objective for the review?
What will be the grounds for acceptance or rejection of a registration?
(Such guidance is likely obvious to those closely involved with the work.
It is not obvious to someone newly approaching this document and
considering whether the registry is the right one to use.)

* Minor

One OID is described as obsolete, which is fine.  The ones designated
for LTAP are not described as obsolete, but it is not clear what the
disposition of this protocol is.  (It may not be the purview of this
document to make statements about this, but if the answer is obvious,
it should be given.)
(This is confounded by referencing a long dead I-D as "work in
progress" -- is it indeed in progress?  Again, maybe not for this
document to fix this longstanding issue about I-D citations.)

* Nits

Add period at end of section 1.
6: "it raise no new"

[apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-housley-lt… Carsten Bormann
Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-housle… Russ Housley
Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-housle… Carsten Bormann