Last Call Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-08
review-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-08-opsdir-lc-wijnen-2015-03-28-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 11) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2015-04-06 | |
| Requested | 2015-03-21 | |
| Authors | Larry Masinter | |
| Draft last updated | 2015-03-28 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Roni Even
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Chris Lonvick (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Bert Wijnen (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Bert Wijnen |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-08-opsdir-lc-wijnen-2015-03-28 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 08 (document currently at 11) | |
| Review result | Ready | |
| Review completed: | 2015-03-28 |
Review
review-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-08-opsdir-lc-wijnen-2015-03-28
I did OPSDIR review for
I see not operational aspects or network management aspects
in this document.
I see the use of RFC2119 words like MUST, MAY etc. yet I see no reference to RFC2119
But other than that, I think the document is ready for publication.
nits and/or typos:
- bottom of page 3, last para:
Within a given form, insuring field names are unique is also helpful.
Is it ensuring or insuring? I would think ensuring, but English is not my native language
- last line on page 4:
do not use directory path information that may seesms to be present.
s/seesms/seems/
- section 4.7
--AaB03x
content-disposition: form-data; name="_charset_"
iso8859-1
--AaB03x--
content-disposition: form-data; name="field1"
...text encoded in iso-8859-1 ...
AaB03x--
I am not an expert in character sets and such.
But.... would it not be more consistent to use the same "iso8859-1" verywhere instead
of using "iso-8859-1" in addition to "iso8859-1" ???
Bert