Last Call Review of draft-wilde-service-link-rel-10
review-wilde-service-link-rel-10-opsdir-lc-chown-2019-02-03-00

Request Review of draft-wilde-service-link-rel
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-11-20
Requested 2018-10-23
Draft last updated 2019-02-03
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 Tim Chown
State Completed
Review review-wilde-service-link-rel-10-opsdir-lc-chown-2019-02-03
Reviewed rev. 10
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2019-02-03

Review
review-wilde-service-link-rel-10-opsdir-lc-chown-2019-02-03

Hi,

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

The draft specifies three new link relation types - service-doc, service-desc, and
service-meta - to provide a common mechanisms for referring to documentation, 
descriptions, or metadata for Web Services or APIs.

The draft is reasonably well-written, though it could probably be abbreviated
further.  There are no specific examples of the use of the new link relation types;
I assume this may be offered in future documents.   

I have no substantial comments on the draft, particularly given it is only targeted
as an Informational RFC.

That said, it is unusual to see a RFC2119 boilerplate, but then no instances of MUST 
and only two instances of SHOULD in the document, when there are also some lower
case instances of these words.  I therefore wonder whether the document was
originally targeted at Standards Track and then dropped down to Informational.
It looks like the 2119 boilerplate could be removed?

I would therefore classify the document as Ready with Nits.