Last Call Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search-01
review-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search-01-genart-lc-dupont-2014-07-26-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 04) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2014-07-21 | |
Requested | 2014-07-10 | |
Authors | Barry Leiba , Alexey Melnikov | |
I-D last updated | 2014-07-26 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -01
by Francis Dupont
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -03 by Francis Dupont (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Tina Tsou (Ting ZOU) (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Stefan Winter (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Francis Dupont |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 01 (document currently at 04) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2014-07-26 |
review-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search-01-genart-lc-dupont-2014-07-26-00
In your previous mail you wrote: > Thanks, Francis, for the review. > > > first a meta-question: should this kind of documents refer to its > > parent, RFC 6237 (same subject but RFC 6237 is Experimental, the > > I-D is for Standards Track)? IMHO it should not (so the I-D is > > right) because this will be (only) mentioned in the RFC index. > > I'm not sure what you're asking: do you mean to muse about whether the > predecessor document should appear in the references section? => yes > If so, > I agree with your conclusion: it shouldn't... because the predecessor > document will be made obsolete by this one, and because there's > nothing in the predecessor to which this is referring (except to its > existence). => it is my reasonning too (and the fact there is a predecessor is in the RFC Index so is not lost). > > - ToC page 2 and 9 page 11: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments > > Doh! I've fixed the spelling in my working version; thanks. Thanks Francis.Dupont at fdupont.fr