Last Call Review of draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme-16
review-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme-16-genart-lc-sparks-2014-12-01-00
| Request | Review of | draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 18) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2014-12-02 | |
| Requested | 2014-11-28 | |
| Draft last updated | 2014-12-01 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -15 by Robert Sparks
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -16 by Robert Sparks (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Sandra Murphy (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -15 by Benson Schliesser (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Robert Sparks |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme-16-genart-lc-sparks-2014-12-01 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 16 (document currently at 18) | |
| Review result | Ready | |
| Review completed: | 2014-12-01 |
Review
review-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme-16-genart-lc-sparks-2014-12-01
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document:
draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme-16
Reviewer:
Robert Sparks
Review Date:
21-Nov-2014
IETF LC End Date:
25-Nov-2014
IESG Telechat date: 4-Dec-2014
Summary: Almost ready, but has nits that should be addressed before
publication as a Proposed Standard
Nits/editorial comments:
First: (For Barry as sponsoring AD and shepherd):
I think you might want to say more about how this and the related
PWG documents are being handled cross-organization.
An RFC that normatively updates a document under some other
organization's change control is an unusual thing. Usually there are
parallel documents coordinating this. Is there such a parallel PWG
doc this time?
Why aren't there RFC variants of the PWG docs (we've republished
other organization's documents in the RFC series before...)
Second: The 6 step construction in section 3 is a little odd. Why
aren't steps 3-5 collapsed into one step that says "go do what
https: says to do"? Split this way, especially with the repeated
guidance in the security considerations section pointing somewhat
loosely to 7320 and 5246 for things that "can be used to address
this threat" looks like an opportunity for someone to get creative
with how they check the certificate supplied by the server against
the name in the URI. If you don't want anything but what happens in
https to happen, I think it needs to be more clearly stated.
Otherwise, doesn't this go off into RFC 6125 territory?
Lastly (and much smaller nits):
There are several callouts from the text that look like references
that are not represented in the references section.
ID nits complains about all of these, and should make them easy to
find and fix.
For example (from section 1.2):
2) Some existing IPP Client and IPP Printer implementations of HTTP
Upgrade [RFC 2717] do not perform upgrade at the beginning of
This reference is oddly constructed - please check early with the
RFC Editor on whether they
will take this, or want something a little different.
[HTTP1.1] HTTP/1.1. See [RFC7230], [RFC7231], [RFC7232],
[RFC7233], [RFC7234], and [RFC7235].
This line is wrong, and is causing idnits to complain once where it
shouldn't.
(The thing in the [] should be RFC7235, not 4):
[RFC7234] Fielding, R., and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235, June 2014.