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 rev. 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
Draft 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 Emery (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour
State Completed
Review review-ietf-repute-query-http-09-genart-lc-shirazipour-2013-08-29
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2013-08-29

Review
review-ietf-repute-query-http-09-genart-lc-shirazipour-2013-08-29






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