Last Call Review of draft-ietf-paws-protocol-14
review-ietf-paws-protocol-14-genart-lc-sparks-2014-08-07-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-paws-protocol
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 20)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-07-07
Requested 2014-06-26
Authors Vincent Chen, Subir Das, Lei Zhu, John Malyar, Pete McCann
Draft last updated 2014-08-07
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -14 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -14 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-paws-protocol-14-genart-lc-sparks-2014-08-07
Reviewed rev. 14 (document currently at 20)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2014-08-07

Review
review-ietf-paws-protocol-14-genart-lc-sparks-2014-08-07

This all looks very good to me.

I've reviewed the diff between 12 and 14, and read through 14.
Thanks for the very nice work on simplifying section 6, Vincent!

This isn't worth holding the document up in any way, but as it's going 
through the rest of it's processing
consider, in 6.1,  saying that the id should be generated uniquely 
enough to allow the use of JSON-RPC batch?

RjS


On 7/31/14, 2:33 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 7/31/14 2:31 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> Given that I want to update the IANA language some more, I have another
>>> draft ready to upload (incorporating these changes). Should I do 
>>> that now?
>> I think you should, unless Pete has other ideas for some reason.  As I
>> always say: revisions are cheap.
>
> Yeah, please go right ahead. Once I hear from Robert, I will likely 
> send this out for a second Last Call, given the extent of the changes, 
> so having the latest-and-greatest in there would be good.
>
> pr
>