Last Call Review of draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-13
review-murchison-webdav-prefer-13-genart-lc-bryant-2017-01-13-00

Request Review of draft-murchison-webdav-prefer
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-01-16
Requested 2016-12-19
Authors Kenneth Murchison
I-D last updated 2017-01-13
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -11 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Hannes Tschofenig
Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Al Morton (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Stewart Bryant
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-murchison-webdav-prefer by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 13 (document currently at 14)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2017-01-13
review-murchison-webdav-prefer-13-genart-lc-bryant-2017-01-13-00
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

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-13
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 13 Jan 2016
IETF LC End Date: 16 January 2017
IESG Telechat date: 19 January 2017


Summary: Ready with nits

This is a well written document with two minor editorial issues 
remaining from the version previously reviewed.


Issues:

 From ID-nits:

   -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7240,
      but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

   Specifically I think the nits checker is looking to see RFC724O
   called up in the Abstract.



=========
It says in section 5

5.  Implementation Status

    < RFC Editor: before publication please remove this section, the
    reference to [RFC7942], and any "URIs" section >

I think you ned the whole of section 9.3 to be deleted. If that is so
it would be clearer to the editor to say so.