Last Call Review of draft-ietf-extra-6855bis-03
review-ietf-extra-6855bis-03-artart-lc-yee-2024-08-28-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-extra-6855bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 04) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
Deadline | 2024-08-29 | |
Requested | 2024-08-15 | |
Authors | Pete Resnick , Jiankang Yao , Arnt Gulbrandsen | |
I-D last updated | 2024-08-28 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -03
by Chris M. Lonvick
(diff)
Artart Last Call review of -03 by Joseph Yee (diff) Genart Last Call review of -03 by Russ Housley (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Joseph Yee |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-extra-6855bis by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/sAOcb0NWSCEERmXB7g6JOwcqFBA | |
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 04) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2024-08-28 |
review-ietf-extra-6855bis-03-artart-lc-yee-2024-08-28-00
Hi all, I reviewed the 6855-bis ver 03 and the draft has four editorial issues to fix (fairly minor). Some texts reference the wrong section number due to a new section that shift the numbers. The draft is ready after these fixes. (1) 2nd paragraph in Section 3 now: The "UTF=ONLY" capability, described in Section 6 should be: The "UTF=ONLY" capability, described in Section 7 (2) 1st paragraph in Section 7 This is an old mistake from RFC6855, which I'm guilty of as well... now: The "UTF8=ONLY" capability indicates that the server supports "UTF8=ACCEPT" (see Section 4) should be: The "UTF8=ONLY" capability indicates that the server supports "UTF8=ACCEPT" (see Section 3) (3) The end at Section 9 now: The issue of handling messages containing non-ASCII characters in legacy environments is discussed in Section 7. should be: The issue of handling messages containing non-ASCII characters in legacy environments is discussed in Section 8. (4) the end at Section 11 now: Those issues are discussed in Section 7. should be: Those issues are discussed in Section 8. Also one nit At the first paragraph in Section 1 Introduction, there's an extra "}" after [RFC3501].