Last Call Review of draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07
review-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07-genart-lc-even-2015-01-20-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-01-22
Requested 2015-01-09
Authors Kenneth Cartwright , Vikas Bhatia , Jean-Francois Mule , Alexander Mayrhofer
I-D last updated 2015-01-20
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Roni Even (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 09)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2015-01-20
review-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07-genart-lc-even-2015-01-20-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.

Document:

draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2015–1-17

IETF LC End Date: 2015–1-22

IESG Telechat date:



Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC

.





Major issues:



Minor issues:



There are two schemas used, the sppf:base and sppf:soap each have a version
number. When talking about supported version and about response codes on
supported version, is it referring to the base or soap version? There is some
text in the minorVer section but it is not clear enough.















Nits/editorial comments:

The “complexType name="ResultCodeType” is defined in multiple subsections
(7.2.1.2 , 7.2.2.2 , …) but not in all places, should be specified only once or
in all. Also the definitions in section 7 are not consistent with the ones in
section 9 which is the formal definition.