Last Call Review of draft-ietf-core-http-mapping-12
review-ietf-core-http-mapping-12-opsdir-lc-dodge-2016-10-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-core-http-mapping
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2016-10-11
Requested 2016-08-16
Authors Angelo Castellani, Salvatore Loreto, Akbar Rahman, Thomas Fossati, Esko Dijk
Draft last updated 2016-10-05
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -12 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -14 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -15 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Dacheng Zhang (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Menachem Dodge (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -17 by Dacheng Zhang
Opsdir Telechat review of -17 by Susan Hares
Assignment Reviewer Menachem Dodge
State Completed
Review review-ietf-core-http-mapping-12-opsdir-lc-dodge-2016-10-05
Reviewed rev. 12 (document currently at 17)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2016-10-05

Review
review-ietf-core-http-mapping-12-opsdir-lc-dodge-2016-10-05

Hi,

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 with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the 

IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews 

during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments 

just like any other last call comments. 

This document is "informational" and provides reference information for implementing a cross-protocol network proxy that translates from HTTP to CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol). It provides the mapping to and from HTTP to CoAP.

NITS

====

The NITS tool has found the following - comments and warnings:

-- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
     sections in the document, please surround them with '<CODE BEGINS>' and
     '<CODE ENDS>' lines.


  Checking references for intended status: Informational
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Missing Reference: 'C-T' is mentioned on line 796, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'C-E' is mentioned on line 782, but not defined

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2616
     (Obsoleted by RFC 7230, RFC 7231, RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235)



Other than this, the document is well written and is explained well.

I have no further issues with the document.

Thank you kindly.

Best Regards,

Menachem