Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-04
review-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-04-artart-lc-allocchio-2021-08-09-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 09) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
| Deadline | 2021-08-09 | |
| Requested | 2021-07-19 | |
| Authors | Christer Holmberg , Harald T. Alvestrand , Cullen Fluffy Jennings | |
| I-D last updated | 2021-08-09 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -04
by Derrell Piper
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Ines Robles (diff) Artart Last Call review of -04 by Claudio Allocchio (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Claudio Allocchio |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/vCRligF8bnxVh9TKuHQ7nMrxQTI | |
| Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 09) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2021-08-09 |
review-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-04-artart-lc-allocchio-2021-08-09-00
The document is consistent and ready for publication. Just as a style comment: section 1.4 is a bit unusual in an RFC, specifically by mentioning what happened during one IETF meeting, etc. Nothing wrong with it but it mixes a specification (the RFC resulting for publication) with historic actions. Maybe there is a way to avoid this by changing a bit the text of the 1.4 section. Another comment: again all fine! but when a document like this updates/fixes other documents, including errata, new text replacing sections in other documents, etc, the implementer has a challenging task in putting the pieces together. I'd for the future suggest not to use this "amendment" technique, but to publish complete updated RFCs versions instead.