Last Call Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search-01

Request Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-07-21
Requested 2014-07-10
Draft last updated 2014-07-26
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -01 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -03 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Tina Tsou (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Stefan Winter (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Review review-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search-01-genart-lc-dupont-2014-07-26
Reviewed rev. 01 (document currently at 04)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2014-07-26


 In your previous mail you wrote:

>  Thanks, Francis, for the review.
>  >  first a meta-question: should this kind of documents refer to its
>  >  parent, RFC 6237 (same subject but RFC 6237 is Experimental, the
>  >  I-D is for Standards Track)? IMHO it should not (so the I-D is
>  >  right) because this will be (only) mentioned in the RFC index.
>  I'm not sure what you're asking: do you mean to muse about whether the
>  predecessor document should appear in the references section?

=> yes

>  If so,
>  I agree with your conclusion: it shouldn't... because the predecessor
>  document will be made obsolete by this one, and because there's
>  nothing in the predecessor to which this is referring (except to its
>  existence).

=> it is my reasonning too (and the fact there is a predecessor
is in the RFC Index so is not lost).

>  >  - ToC page 2 and 9 page 11: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
>  Doh!  I've fixed the spelling in my working version; thanks.


Francis.Dupont at