Last Call Review of draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis-05
review-nottingham-rfc5988bis-05-genart-lc-bryant-2017-05-24-00
| Request | Review of | draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2017-05-26 | |
| Requested | 2017-04-28 | |
| Authors | Mark Nottingham | |
| Draft last updated | 2017-05-24 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Stewart Bryant
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Carlos MartÃnez (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Alan DeKok (diff) Genart Telechat review of -07 by Stewart Bryant (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Stewart Bryant |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-nottingham-rfc5988bis-05-genart-lc-bryant-2017-05-24 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 05 (document currently at 08) | |
| Review result | Ready with Nits | |
| Review completed: | 2017-05-24 |
Review
review-nottingham-rfc5988bis-05-genart-lc-bryant-2017-05-24
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 <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis-?? Reviewer: Stewart Bryant Review Date: 2017-05-24 IETF LC End Date: 2017-05-26 IESG Telechat date: 2017-06-08 Summary: This is a well written document, and ready for publication. I found an IANA consideration a little confusing, but I am sure that either IANA understand it or will ask for clarification. Major issues: Minor issues: I found the IANA considerations confusing. Specifically it looks like Section 4.1 refers to https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-headers.xhtml although it does not say so in so many words. Assuming that to be the case the IANA text in section 4.1 (which copies the text from RFC5688) does not line up column by column with the text in the registry. I assume that [RFC&rfc.number;] means [This RFC], but do not see where Author/Change control fits in the registry. Nits/editorial comments: In the intro and the abstract the text "a model for indicate the relationships" is not good grammar.