Last Call Review of draft-ietf-geojson-text-sequence-03
review-ietf-geojson-text-sequence-03-genart-lc-sparks-2017-01-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-geojson-text-sequence
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-01-24
Requested 2017-01-10
Draft last updated 2017-01-23
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Sarah Banks
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-geojson-text-sequence-03-genart-lc-sparks-2017-01-23
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2017-01-23

Review
review-ietf-geojson-text-sequence-03-genart-lc-sparks-2017-01-23

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-geojson-text-sequence-03
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2017-01-23
IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-24
IESG Telechat date: 2017-02-02

Summary: Ready for publication as Proposed Standard, but with nits that should be addressed before proceeding

The last call was issued indicating this draft is being considered for Proposed Standard (which is appropriate). The draft itself has "Informational" in its header block. That should be "Standards Track" instead.

The Abstract contains the words "proposed standard". Please edit that away. You want the flexibility in the future to change the status of the RFC this will become without having to issue a new RFC editing the text. I suggest replacing "A proposed standard" with "This document defines a format"

In the introduction, you say "possibly infinite". I think you mean "arbitrarily large".