Change:
lookup are example values.  The server in this example also indicates that it is capable of providing observation on resource lookups. <del> [ The RFC editor is asked to replace this and later occurrences of MCD1 with the assigned IPv6 site-local address for "all CoRE Resource Directories". ] </del> From a management and maintenance perspective, it is necessary to identify the components that constitute the RD server.  The identification refers to information about for example client-server

Discussion:
Request a dedicated IPv4 address (rather than sharing with All CoAP nodes) Fix erroneous examples Editorial changes Add figure numbers to examples Update RD parameters table to reflect changes of earlier versions in the text Typos and minor wording
Where IANA has not yet allocated a value, we cannot say "has allocated a value". Yes, it is a bit tedious to change this once the allocation has been done, but IANA has to be able to derive from the text what it needs to do. Also, I don't understand the "equal to" language in section mc-registration; do you mean ", the same as"?
Changing this as of finishing up the pending comments. Ad "equal to", my understanding is that we don't actually register a new address but just ask people to use "All CoAP nodes" for the same purpose (given the tighter address space). Is that the agreed-upon intention? If so: Does this warrant IANA action (by adding another name alias to the same address), or won't we just say where we use it that there ain't no IPv4 multicast address for that, and All CoAP nodes are used instead?
I cannot recall a recent discussion on this, but this is indeed one possible interpretation of the not so clear language. I don’t think the registry uses aliases. So there would be no IANA action. There should be no text in mc-registration (since this is for IANA), but there should be text in 4.3 URI Discovery saying that. Alternatively, we could simply go for another IPv4 address. The registry doesn’t seem to explode (there is just one entry after RFC 7252). But let’s find the WG discussion first. Grüße, Carsten
anchors are /sensors/temp but targets are /temp
some examples have figure numbers, some don't
Figure 6 has a spurious anchor (and figure 7 right below is not labeled as a figure)
The -12 draft suggests as a heuristic to ask at . There is a multicast address for All CoAP Nodes, I suggest we use that (would be ).
Indeed, that is an obvious change to be made. We also could think of registering a multicast address for "all CoRE resource directories", if that turns out to be useful.

agree fully with Carsten chrysn schreef op 2017-11-04 13:07:
I like the "All CoRE RDs" address. It's trivial for IPv6, but the v4 addresses are more scarce. Can we register one of both, or would the v4 behavior just be "All CoAP nodes" again?
Let's stick to all CoRE RDs address; specify a new address for v6, and equate all CoRE RD address equal to all CoAP nodes.
Inserted text for "all RD" MC address registry, called MCD1 for the moment
the equation would have turned out a bit complicated in the iana considerations (either it'd have spread the text around or we'd be aliasing multicast addresses), going with a dedicated address. See URL and today's CoRE chat logs.