Skip to main content

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