Last Call Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08
review-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08-genart-lc-even-2012-12-16-2-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-01-08
Requested 2012-12-27
Authors Paul Bryan, Mark Nottingham
Draft last updated 2012-12-16
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Roni Even (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Roni Even (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Review review-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08-genart-lc-even-2012-12-16-2
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 10)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2012-12-16

Review
review-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08-genart-lc-even-2012-12-16-2

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-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2012–12–16

IETF LC End Date: 2012–12–25

IESG Telechat date: 2013-1-10

 

Summary: This draft is almost  ready for publication

.

 

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

1.

       

The document has as the intended status “Informational” while the last call says that the intended status is proposed standard?

 

 

Nits/editorial comments:

In the IANA section the “Encoding considerations:  binary”. I noticed that RFC 4627 has a broader description:

“Encoding considerations: 8bit if UTF-8; binary if UTF-16 or UTF-32

JSON may be represented using UTF-8, UTF-16, or UTF-32.  When JSON is written in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit compatible.  When JSON is written in UTF-16 or UTF-32, the binary content-transfer-encoding   must be used.”