Last Call Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown-use-cases-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown-use-cases
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-07-03
Requested 2015-06-25
Authors Sean Leonard
Draft last updated 2015-07-04
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Tom Taylor (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Paul Wouters (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tom Taylor 
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown-use-cases-02-genart-lc-taylor-2015-07-04
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2015-07-04


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Tom Taylor

Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown-use-cases-02
Reviewer: Tom Taylor		
Review Date:        2015/07/04
IETF LC End Date:   2015/07/03
IESG Telechat date: 2015/07/09

Summary: Well-written. Ready with nits.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

IDNits reports five instances of control characters in the document. 

Good luck finding them!

IDNits reports a number of missing and unused references.

Sec. 1.1, second para, second-last line:
s/bit are corrupted/bit is corrupted/

Sec. 1.3: There seem to be a few missing references, where [CITE] is 

used as a stand-in. Also see [NB: CITE?] later in that section.

Sec. 2.7.2: RFC 2119 SHOULD is used, but the usual invocation of RFC 

2119 language at the start of the document is missing. The next section 

(re GIT) uses lower-case "should", and that is probably your best way 

forward. Actually, IDNits (now that I check) reports a number of other 

instances of RFC 2119 capitalization, so you'll have to decide what is 


Sec. 4.1: s/# MutliMarkdown Example #/# MultiMarkdown Example #/

Sec. 4.2 (beginning has this:
   ~~Oops this is some mistaken text.~~
Is that example markdown or a comment on something that has to be fixed?