Last Call Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn
Requested rev. 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
Draft 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 Black (diff)
Assignment Reviewer David Black
State Completed
Review review-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-04-opsdir-lc-black-2014-05-08
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 05)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2014-05-08


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

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.

David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 at        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754