Last Call Review of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-12
review-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-12-genart-lc-melnikov-2014-04-28-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 14) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2014-04-25 | |
| Requested | 2014-04-16 | |
| Authors | Laura Liess , Roland Jesske , Alan Johnston , Dale R. Worley , Paul Kyzivat | |
| I-D last updated | 2014-04-28 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -12
by Alexey Melnikov
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Matt Lepinski (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Bert Wijnen (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Alexey Melnikov |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 12 (document currently at 14) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2014-04-28 |
review-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-12-genart-lc-melnikov-2014-04-28-00
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-salud-alert-info-urns-12.txt Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov Review Date: 27 April 2014 IETF LC End Date: 25 April 2014 IESG Telechat date: (if known) N/A Summary: Ready with nits/questions. Major issues: None Minor issues: 13. User Agent Behaviour The User Agent (UA) MUST produce a reasonable rendering regardless of the combination of URIs (of any schemes) in the Alert-Info header field. This MUST is not well defined to be implementable. How can conformance or violation of this requirement can be tested? I suggest you avoid using RFC 2119 language here. Has this been submitted to the urn-nid at apps.ietf.org mailing list for 2 weeks review? (as per RFC 3406) Nits/editorial comments: "REQ-4: has been deleted. To avoid confusion, the number will not be reused". I find this to be rather unusual. Are these requirements used in RFPs? In Section 7: date = [CC] YY [ "-" MM ["-" DD] ] Is there a need for having 2 octet years? Are you trying to save some bytes here at the expense of extra (albeit minor) complexity?