Last Call Review of draft-ietf-jose-cookbook-06
review-ietf-jose-cookbook-06-opsdir-lc-korhonen-2014-12-17-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-jose-cookbook |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2014-12-16 | |
Requested | 2014-11-18 | |
Authors | Matthew A. Miller | |
I-D last updated | 2014-12-17 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -06
by Yaron Sheffer
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Jouni Korhonen (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Jouni Korhonen |
State | Completed | |
Review |
review-ietf-jose-cookbook-06-opsdir-lc-korhonen-2014-12-17
|
|
Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2014-12-17 |
review-ietf-jose-cookbook-06-opsdir-lc-korhonen-2014-12-17-00
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 primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. I found the document be ready for publication. There are no operational or management concerns in a document like this. Few minor nits & comments: o IDnits spits out warnings. I recon all of them are of kind that will be corrected by t he RFC Editor -> no worries. o The document uses example domains "hobbiton.example" and alike. According to RFC2606 & 6761 the example domains are "example.com" etc. These should be corrected UNLESS they cause too much trouble regenerating outputs into examples... o line 325 "coordiates" should probably be "coordinates". o I would take acronyms (e.g. "(JWS)") away from the abstract. - jouni