Last Call Review of draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08
review-ietf-capport-architecture-08-genart-lc-halpern-2020-05-16-2-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-capport-architecture
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-05-25
Requested 2020-05-11
Authors Kyle Larose, David Dolson, Heng Liu
Draft last updated 2020-05-16
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Joel Halpern
Assignment Reviewer Joel Halpern
State Completed
Review review-ietf-capport-architecture-08-genart-lc-halpern-2020-05-16-2
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/7ig-0OWEq_GxOuLXqgYchDtXny0
Reviewed rev. 08
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2020-05-16

Review
review-ietf-capport-architecture-08-genart-lc-halpern-2020-05-16-2

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2020-05-16
IETF LC End Date: 2020-05-25
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC

Major issues:
    This document says it is Informational.  It says it describes "a" capport architecture.  But the third paragraph of the introduction says that this document standardizes an architecture.  The rest of this review assumes that is an error, and this is describing "an" architecture, rather than "the IETF" architecture.

Minor issues:
    The abstract really should expand "capport".   As simple as having the first sentence read "This document describes a "captive portal" (capport) archtiecture."

Nits/editorial comments:
    Following the first bulleted list in the introduction, the document reads: "this document does not yet describe...?  The word "yet" seems inappropriate.  We are pbulsihgin this as an RFC.  Please remove the "yet".