Document: draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-07.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <miguel.garcia@nsn.com> 
Review Date: 2007-08-11 
IETF LC End Date: 2007-08-17

Summary: The document is almost Ready for publication as a BCP.

Comments:

1) My general comment is related to the relation of this draft to RFC
4858 (Document Shepherding from WGLC to publication). Especially, Section 4 of RFC 4585 
says:

    At the time of this publication, RFC 2434 is under revision
    [RFC2434bis], and the updates are and will be of value to the
    Document Shepherd.  Note that the Document Shepherd MUST determine
    (by individual review and consultation with others) what is the most
    recent and the most applicable IANA information and guidance for his
    or her document, be it the overall guidance, or external documents in
    his or her area, or in other areas.  An example of an external
    document is [RFC4020].

So, I was expecting that the draft, which is the mentioned revision of RFC 2434, 
mentions the role of the Document Shepherd with respect IANA considerations and IANA 
experts. At the moment, it is left to the reader's interpretation. My suggestion is
to clarify the role of the Document Shephard and the IANA process.

2) Although the document uses normative term (e.g., MUST), and includes a reference 
to RFC 2119, it is not done accurately. First, the RFC 2119 boilerplate is out of date 
(and id-nits complains). Then, the boilerplate is typically written in a separate section 
titled 'Terminology', rather than buried at the end of the Introduction section. 
Last, RFC 2119 must be a normative reference.

3) Small contradiction in Section 11, IANA Considerations. While the document indicates
 that "this document is all about IANA considerations", it fails to comply with its own
 Section 6.1 to say whether the document itself mandates actions to IANA. I would suggest
 to add or replace the existing sentence with:

   This document has no IANA actions.

4) id-nits reveals some other very minor nits:
- missing expiration date in the draft
- no 'intended status'
- A number of obsolete references, although I think they some of them might be intentional, 
because they are examples of existing IANA registries.
- draft-carpenter-protocol-extensions in now RFC 4775