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 revision 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 C. Bryan , Mark Nottingham
I-D 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
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 10)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2012-12-16
review-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08-genart-lc-even-2012-12-16-2-00
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.”