Last Call Review of draft-ietf-repute-query-http-09
review-ietf-repute-query-http-09-genart-lc-shirazipour-2013-08-29-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-repute-query-http |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 11) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2013-08-29 | |
Requested | 2013-08-15 | |
Authors | Dr. Nathaniel S. Borenstein , Murray Kucherawy | |
I-D last updated | 2013-08-29 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -09
by Meral Shirazipour
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Shawn M Emery (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Meral Shirazipour |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-repute-query-http by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 11) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2013-08-29 |
review-ietf-repute-query-http-09-genart-lc-shirazipour-2013-08-29-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-repute-query-http-09 Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour Review Date: 2013-08-29 IETF LC End Date: 2013-08-29 IESG Telechat date: 2013-09-12 Summary: This draft is almost ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have some comments. Nits/editorial comments: Nits: -[Page 4], line 2, "attributies" --typo-->"attributes" -[Page 4], line 8, "support support" ----> remove duplicate -[Page 4], line 5 before last, "is cable of" ----->"is capable of" -[Page 4], line 4 before last, "until finds" ----->"until it finds" -[Page 5], Section 3.3, line 2, "[URI-TEMPLATE]. (See Section 3.2.) ", misplaced dot after the reference. -[Page 6], line 2, "An media" --typo-->"A media" comments: -Not sure if it was forgotten or by choice: second author's affiliation is missing. -Suggestion: for references to RFCs, it is better to use the [RFC####] as reference in the text instead of ["name"]. -Section 4, please double check to make sure RFC5226 is followed. -Appendix B, not sure if necessary since it is the WGs list and not some other mailing list. Best Regards, Meral --- Meral Shirazipour Ericsson Research www.ericsson.com