Draft:  draft-ietf-ldapbis-bcp64-05.txt
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern [joel@stevecrocker.com]
Review Date:  Saturday 9/10/2005 9:22 PM CST
LC Date: 9/21/2005

Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a BCP.

Review:
-------
Question: Based on the issues that have been raised about reviews recently, 
should this document be more specific as to what kinds of issues the expert 
reviewer is to look for in each kind of item to be reviewed, and why?  (I 
am not arguing with the WGs choice of mechanism, just trying to head off 
trouble that can be foreseen.)

Question: Is the last sentence of the second paragraph of 3.4 intended to 
call for expert review of all descriptors, or only of descriptors 
referencing different object identifiers from an already registered 
descriptor with the same name?  While I find this verbiage awkward in the 
other places it is used, this particular usage is less clear than the others.

Editorial: In section 3, the word "expecting" is almost certainly "excepting".

idnits: (I note that the base document is 13 pages, but it probably should 
have a ToC anyway.)

   * Found rfc3978 Section 5.4 paragraph 1 boilerplate (on line 909), which
     is fine, but *also* found rfc2026 Section 10.4C paragraph 1 boilerplate on
     line 43. It should be removed.
   * The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure
     Acknowledgement -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning.
     Boilerplate error?
     (The document uses RFC 3667 boilerplate or RFC 3978-like boilerplate
     instead of verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate.  After 6 May 2005, submission of
     drafts without verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate is not accepted.)
   * The document is more than 15 pages and seems to lack a Table of
     Contents.
   * There are 35 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
     one being 6 characters in excess of 72.