Last Call Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-08
review-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-08-opsdir-lc-wijnen-2015-03-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2015-04-06
Requested 2015-03-21
Authors Larry M Masinter
I-D last updated 2020-01-21 (Latest revision 2015-04-10)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -08 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -08 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -08 by Bert Wijnen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Bert Wijnen
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 11)
Result Ready
Completed 2015-03-28
review-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-08-opsdir-lc-wijnen-2015-03-28-00
I did OPSDIR review for

I see not operational aspects or network management aspects
in this document.


I see the use of RFC2119 words like MUST, MAY etc. yet I see no reference to RFC2119

But other than that, I think the document is ready for publication.

nits and/or typos:

- bottom of page 3, last para:

      Within a given form, insuring field names are unique is also helpful.

Is it ensuring or insuring? I would think ensuring, but English is not my native language

- last line on page 4:

     do not use directory path information that may seesms to be present.

   s/seesms/seems/

- section 4.7

       --AaB03x
       content-disposition: form-data; name="_charset_"

       iso8859-1
       --AaB03x--
       content-disposition: form-data; name="field1"

       ...text encoded in iso-8859-1 ...
       AaB03x--

   I am not an expert in character sets and such.
   But.... would it not be more consistent to use the same "iso8859-1" verywhere instead
   of using "iso-8859-1"  in addition to "iso8859-1" ???

Bert