Last Call Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-http-problem-01
review-ietf-appsawg-http-problem-01-genart-lc-romascanu-2015-11-30-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-http-problem
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-12-04
Requested 2015-11-20
Authors Mark Nottingham , Erik Wilde
I-D last updated 2015-11-30
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -01 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -02 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-appsawg-http-problem by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 01 (document currently at 03)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2015-11-30
review-ietf-appsawg-http-problem-01-genart-lc-romascanu-2015-11-30-00

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



http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq



Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-http-problem-01

Reviewer:  Dan Romascanu

Review Date: 11/30/15

IETF LC End Date: 12/4/15

IESG Telechat date:



Summary: Ready (with one clarification question).



A very useful, clear and well written document.



Major issues:



Minor issues:



One question which may be a matter of clarification rather than an issue:



In Section 3:



Ø



If such additional members are defined, their names SHOULD start with a letter
(ALPHA, as per [RFC5234]) and SHOULD consist of characters from ALPHA, DIGIT,
and "_" (so that it can be serialized in formats
 other than JSON), and SHOULD be three characters or longer.



What is the rationale here for the SHOULDs? What are the exception cases that
require using SHOULD rather than MUST in this paragraph?



Nits/editorial comments: