Document: draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers Title: NETCONF Transport Port Numbers Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody Review result: Ready Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody Review Result: Ready (with comments) I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational Directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in the last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Thanks for doing this cleanup exercise. # IANA While the OLD/NEW style is clear, I am unsure if that should be preserved in the IANA consideration section of the published RFC. Does IANA have any opinion on this style? Also, since RFC 6335 asks the de-assigned port to be marked as Reserved, I am unsure whether leaving the port number empty (as currently done in the new text) will align with the updated IANA registry page. Related question: Should this update also fill in some of the empty fields (like Assignee and Contact), or is it better to keep them empty as done in the past? # Minor The introduction lists two issues - (1) the use of transport protocols (udp), (2) protocols not deployed. On the other hand, the abstract only mentions "(2)". Should it also mention "(1)"? Thanks! Dhruv -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
