Last Call Review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02
review-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02-genart-lc-sparks-2019-11-26-00

Request Review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-12-16
Requested 2019-11-18
Authors Mark Nottingham
Draft last updated 2019-11-26
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Qin Wu (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -02 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Donald Eastlake (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -02 by Joseph Touch (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02-genart-lc-sparks-2019-11-26
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/wRKBioW78JuFE2tmKiYxcz3JXHI
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2019-11-26

Review
review-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02-genart-lc-sparks-2019-11-26

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2019-11-26
IETF LC End Date: 2019-12-16
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready for publication as a BCP but with nits to consider during the approval process

Nits:

Neither the document nor the shepherds write-up acknowledge or explain the replacement of RFC6838 with RFC3986 for a reference for specifying fragment identifier syntax and semantics (hence dropping the reference to 6838). It would be nice to have something captured in the record that supports/explains this change.

Near that change, there is a typo, currently saying "fragment identiers' syntax" (should be "identifiers'")

It might be good to capture in the "Note to Readers" that the RFC Editor should also remove Section 6.3 (URIs) since all the references to them will be removed with the removal of this Note.