Last Call Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-15
review-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-15-genart-lc-gurbani-2020-08-15-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-08-13
Requested 2020-07-30
Authors Mario Loffredo, Maurizio Martinelli, Scott Hollenbeck
Draft last updated 2020-08-15
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -15 by Vijay Gurbani (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vijay Gurbani
State Completed
Review review-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-15-genart-lc-gurbani-2020-08-15
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/E3fSyM9gNp55ztZWgsLnPtkNq9A
Reviewed rev. 15 (document currently at 17)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2020-08-15

Review
review-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-15-genart-lc-gurbani-2020-08-15

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-??
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 2020-08-15
IETF LC End Date: 2020-08-13
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: The draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard, with a couple of nits.

Major issues: 0

Minor issues: 0

Nits/editorial comments: 2

- Section 6: I understand that RFC7942 requests the authors to add a note to the RFC Editor to remove this section, but I also understand that this is a request to the author, and not a mandate (no normative language).   As an implementer, I always find it easy to start with some bootstrapping  code, so I find such implementation notes helpful.  You may wish to consider including this information in an Appendix.

- Section 1, towards end of Page 3: s/that could be/that is often/ (Reason: "could be" implies that truncation could happen, but is may not, "is often" implies the same thing, but that phrase seems somehow more deterministic than "could be".  This is a suggestion, please use your editorial discretion as appropriate.)