Last Call Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-04
review-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-04-opsdir-lc-black-2014-05-08-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2014-05-07 | |
Requested | 2014-04-24 | |
Authors | Mark Nottingham | |
I-D last updated | 2014-05-08 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -04
by Meral Shirazipour
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Alexey Melnikov (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by David L. Black (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | David L. Black |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 05) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2014-05-08 |
review-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-04-opsdir-lc-black-2014-05-08-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-04 Reviewer: David L. Black Review Date: May 4, 2014 IETF LC End Date: May 7, 2014 IESG Telechat Date: May 15, 2014 Summary: Ready with nits This draft provides Best Current Practices for specifying (well, mostly not specifying) substructure in URIs. As the author of a URI scheme spec, RFC 4088 for SNMP URIs, I can definitely envision some of the problems that this draft's recommendations seek to avoid. Overall, this is a clear and well-written draft The author did include operational Difficulty as a rationale for the recommendations, thank you. OTOH, the questions in Appendix A of RFC 5706 are generally inapplicable to this draft, although I do have a couple of minor editorial comments: [1] The Operational Difficulty paragraph in Section 1 implies that all URIs can be represented in filesystems: o Operational Difficulty - Supporting some URI conventions can be difficult in some implementations. For example, specifying that a particular query parameter be used precludes the use of Web servers that serve the response from a filesystem. I might add the text "if the URI scheme is otherwise appropriate for serving of stored responses from a filesystem." [2] Section 2.1 seems somewhat cavalier in suggesting modifications to RFC 4935: A specification that defines substructure within a URI scheme MUST do so in the defining document for that URI scheme, or by modifying [RFC4395]. I might add "Note that modification of [RFC4935] is NOT RECOMMENDED." and add "NOT RECOMMENDED" to the list of RFC 2119 terms used in Section 1.2. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 david.black at emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ----------------------------------------------------