Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12

Request Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-02-24
Requested 2016-02-11
Authors Mark Nottingham , Patrick McManus , Julian Reschke
I-D last updated 2016-02-29
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -12 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 12 (document currently at 14)
Result Ready
Completed 2016-02-29
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


Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20160226
IETF LC End Date: 20160224
IESG Telechat date: 20160303

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - ToC 3 and B page 24: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - 6 page 13: my spell checker complains about idempotency because
  it believes the term doesn't exist. Looking in the web it seems
  to be an accepted (and IMHO well understood) new term...
  In conclusion I have no concern if you keep it. Note if you have
  a language expert you can ask if idempotence is better (I am French
  so I am afraid I have a bias in favor of this alternative because
  it is its spelling in French :-).

 - 9.2 page 17: e.g. -> e.g.,


Francis.Dupont at