Subject: [dispatch] Alissa Cooper's Yes on draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 17:22:20 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems the comment from the Gen-ART review was not addressed:

"1.  Introduction

  Part five of the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS), RFC 3405
  [RFC3405], describes the registration procedures for assignments in
  URI.ARPA.  The document requires that registrations be in the "IETF
  tree" of URI registrations.  The use of URI scheme name trees was
  defined in RFC 2717 [RFC2717] but discontinued by RFC 4395 [RFC4395].
  Since the use of trees was discontinued, there is no way in the
  current process set out in BCP 35 [RFC7595] to meet the requirement."

This is indeed a nit, but I'd prefer s/the requirement/the above requirement/.
The current text did make me briefly think "Which requirement?".