Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-07
review-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-07-opsdir-lc-jaeggli-2020-07-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2020-07-09
Requested 2020-06-25
Authors Michael Richardson , Thomas Werner , Wei Pan
I-D last updated 2020-07-05
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Ines Robles (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Joel Jaeggli (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel Jaeggli
State Completed
Review review-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-07-opsdir-lc-jaeggli-2020-07-05
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/YCudgZwXNMz94S3GXkqKbtZFBVg
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready
Completed 2020-07-05
review-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-07-opsdir-lc-jaeggli-2020-07-05-00
Greetings,

I have reviewed draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify for the purposes of
clarity. As the document is intended as a series of clarifications, signficant
changes, and some  small changes to RFC 7030 this is a mostly straight foward
exercise excepting that in order to be useful a through reading of RFC 7030 is
required.

It appears to be a that major variance to rfc 7030 is:

   Any updates to [RFC7030] to bring it inline with HTTP processing risk
   changing the on-wire protocol in a way that is not backwards
   compatible.  However, reports from implementers suggest that many
   implementations do not send the Content-Transfer-Encoding, and many
   of them ignore it.  The consequence is that simply deprecating the
   header would remain compatible with current implementations.

This update reflect implementation experience and brings 7030 inline with
present implementation.

I think that this document is ready to go.

Thanks
joel