Last Call Review of draft-hansen-scram-sha256-02
review-hansen-scram-sha256-02-genart-lc-sparks-2015-04-07-00

Request Review of draft-hansen-scram-sha256
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-04-24
Requested 2015-03-27
Authors Tony Hansen
Draft last updated 2015-04-07
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Robert Sparks
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -04 by Vincent Roca
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Mehmet Ersue (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks 
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-hansen-scram-sha256-02-genart-lc-sparks-2015-04-07
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 04)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2015-04-07

Review
review-hansen-scram-sha256-02-genart-lc-sparks-2015-04-07

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-hansen-scram-sha256
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2Apr2015
IETF LC End Date: 24Apr2015
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: Ready for publication as Informational, with nits that should 
be considered.

Nits/editorial comments:

Nit:
It raises flags for me when an Informational document uses "Updates" on 
a standards track document.
I would argue that this does _not_ update 5802. IANA did the things that 
5802 requested, and this document
is requesting something else that happens to change those things. That 
makes this more of a "see also" than
a "the protocol changed", and I think the Updates should be removed.

I don't feel super strongly about the difference in _this particular 
case_, hence its classification as a Nit.
But for consistency, and avoiding the issue of having an Informational 
update a PS, I hope you choose to remove it.

Editorial comment:
The URLs in the references section seem superfluous since you've already 
expanded them in the introduction?