Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-13
review-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-13-opsdir-lc-wijnen-2017-01-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-01-11
Requested 2016-12-21
Authors Victor Pascual , Anton Roman , Stephane Cazeaux , Gonzalo Salgueiro , Ram R
I-D last updated 2017-01-10
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -13 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Bert Wijnen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Bert Wijnen
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 13 (document currently at 15)
Result Ready
Completed 2017-01-10
review-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-13-opsdir-lc-wijnen-2017-01-10-00
First: happy new year to all

I did OPSDIR review for document

draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-13

Summary: ready for publication

I do not see any specific operations and/or management issues with
this document.

Notes/nits/questions:

- In the IANA considerations you register bfcp (lower case), i.e.:

       Subprotocol Identifier:  bfcp

  while in the examples (like on page 5), you specify:

Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: BFCP (upper case)


   Is the keyword 'bfcp' case insensistive?
   If so, maybe this could be specified/described somewhere.
   If not, is then the example or the registration incorrect?

- You use the acronyms WS and WSS several times.
  I think they stand for WebSocketand Secure WebSocket?
  But I did not see that those acronyms were ever expanded
  in the draft text. Might be good to so so at least once (on
  first occurrance)

Thanks,
Bert Wijnen