Last Call Review of draft-ietf-clue-data-model-schema-13
review-ietf-clue-data-model-schema-13-genart-lc-dupont-2016-05-23-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-clue-data-model-schema |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 17) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2016-05-23 | |
| Requested | 2016-05-13 | |
| Authors | Roberta Presta, Simon Romano | |
| Draft last updated | 2016-05-23 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Francis Dupont
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Francis Dupont (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Rich Salz (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Stefan Winter (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Francis Dupont |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-clue-data-model-schema-13-genart-lc-dupont-2016-05-23 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 13 (document currently at 17) | |
| Review result | Ready with Nits | |
| Review completed: | 2016-05-23 |
Review
review-ietf-clue-data-model-schema-13-genart-lc-dupont-2016-05-23
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-clue-data-model-schema-14.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 20160525 IETF LC End Date: 20160523 IESG Telechat date: 20160602 Summary: Ready with nits Major issues: none Minor issues: none Nits/editorial comments: - I first had a concern about the CLUE abbrev (abbrevs which are not "well known" according to the RFC Editor's list requires expansion at their first use in the Abstract and in the body, i.e., likely the introduction) but in fact CLUE is not an abbrev but a nickname. I strongly suggest to this (i.e., it is not really an abbrev) in the introduction (1 page 4) with an explicit reference to the framework document where are details. BTW IMHO: * you can leave the CLUE name in the title and the abstract * this recommendation should apply to all CLUE documents (at the exception of the framework one of course) - ToC page 3 and 16.3 page 48: use " vs ' around application/clue_info+xml (for consistency) - 3 page 5: Scene.. -> Scene. - 3 page 5: E.g. -> E.g., - 3 page 6: e.g. -> e.g., - 4 page 7 (people): (Section 11.29). -> (Section 11.29) (for consistency) - 4 page 13 (multiple): sensitivyPattern* -> sensitivityPattern* - 11.16 page 28: highly-dinamic -> highly-dynamic - 11.27.3 page 39: simultanous -> simultaneous - 15 page 46: captures , capture -> captures, capture - 17 page 54 and 18 pages 61, 63 and 64 : Soundlevel -> SoundLevel - 30 page 70: AD -> Area Director - 31 pages 70 to 72: usually normative references are before informative references. I don't know if it is a strong requirement but if it is easy for you to swap 31.1 with 31.2 it will at least follow the "least astonishment" rule... Note I didn't check the xml stuff itself (there are automatic tools for this not-for-human task). Regards Francis.Dupont at fdupont.fr