Last Call Review of draft-ietf-clue-protocol-17

Request Review of draft-ietf-clue-protocol
Requested rev. no specific revision
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-10-17
Requested 2018-10-03
Other Reviews Genart Last Call review of -17 by Francis Dupont
Secdir Last Call review of -17 by Aanchal Malhotra
Review State Completed
Reviewer Zitao Wang
Review review-ietf-clue-protocol-17-opsdir-lc-wang-2018-11-18
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 17
Review result Ready
Draft last updated 2018-11-18
Review completed: 2018-11-18


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 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.	
Document reviewed:  draft-ietf-clue-protocol-17	
The CLUE protocol is an application protocol conceived for the description and negotiation of a telepresence session.  The design of the CLUE protocol takes into account the requirements and the framework defined within the IETF CLUE working group.  A companion document delves into CLUE signaling details, as well as on the SIP/SDP session establishment phase.  CLUE messages flow over the CLUE data channel, based on reliable and ordered SCTP over DTLS transport. Message details, together with the behavior of CLUE Participants acting as Media Providers and/or Media Consumers, are herein discussed.

I think the document make sense and is written very clear, except some small nits:
# The XML examples seem not compatible with XML format, especially, the folding lines. For example: 
        <xs:element name="supportedVersions" type="versionsListType"
        <xs:element name="supportedExtensions"  type="extensionsListType"
        <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"
Suggest to following the artwork folding rules [draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-00].

# A run of idnits revealed there were 0 error, 4 warning and 2 comments:

  Miscellaneous warnings:

  -- The document date (September 21, 2018) is 58 days in the past.  Is this

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: '1-9' is mentioned on line 1357, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: '0-9' is mentioned on line 1363, but not defined

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7667' is defined on line 2987, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5117
     (Obsoleted by RFC 7667)

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).