Last Call Review of draft-wilde-service-link-rel-06
review-wilde-service-link-rel-06-genart-lc-yee-2018-11-20-00

Request Review of draft-wilde-service-link-rel
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-11-20
Requested 2018-10-23
Draft last updated 2018-11-20
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -06 by Peter Yee (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Stefan Santesson (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Tim Chown
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Peter Yee (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -10 by Stefan Santesson
Assignment Reviewer Peter Yee
State Completed
Review review-wilde-service-link-rel-06-genart-lc-yee-2018-11-20
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 10)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2018-11-20

Review
review-wilde-service-link-rel-06-genart-lc-yee-2018-11-20

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-wilde-service-link-rel-06
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: 2018-11-20
IETF LC End Date: 2018-11-20
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:  Almost ready.  The document registers (under the RFC 8288 registry) link relation types for service document, service description, service metadata, and service status.  It's missing a key section.

Major issues: None.

Minor issues:

Page 8, Section 7: RFC 2223 requires you do more than provide an ellipsis here.  You might want to consider what makes sense.  Perhaps a discussion of what happens to a client that obtains a maliciously formatted service-desc or even an errant service-desc.  While a human might be able to see through problems in a "service-doc", it's quite possible that a machine will want to take precautions about handling the received data and acting upon it.

Nits/editorial comments: 

Page 1, Note to Readers: Presumably this section will be removed prior to publication.

Page 3, 4th full paragraph, 1st sentence: Delete the comma after "consumption" and delete the "for" following that.

Page 5, Section 3.3, 1st paragraph, 1st section: change "of" to "between".  Put the section references in parentheses.

Page 5, Section 3.3, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: insert "a" before "better".