Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search-01.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:53:53 +0200

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-appsawg-multimailbox-search-01.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20140717
IETF LC End Date: 20140721
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 first a meta-question: should this kind of documents refer to its
 parent, RFC 6237 (same subject but RFC 6237 is Experimental, the
 I-D is for Standards Track)? IMHO it should not (so the I-D is
 right) because this will be (only) mentioned in the RFC index.

 - ToC page 2 and 9 page 11: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:45:01 -0400

Thanks, Francis, for the review.

>  right) because this will be (only) mentioned in the RFC index.

I'm not sure what you're asking: do you mean to muse about whether the
predecessor document should appear in the references section?  If so,
I agree with your conclusion: it shouldn't... because the predecessor
document will be made obsolete by this one, and because there's
nothing in the predecessor to which this is referring (except to its
existence).

>  - ToC page 2 and 9 page 11: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

Doh!  I've fixed the spelling in my working version; thanks.

Barry

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:14:26 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

>  predecessor document should appear in the references section?

=> yes

>  If so,

=> it is my reasonning too (and the fact there is a predecessor
is in the RFC Index so is not lost).

>  Doh!  I've fixed the spelling in my working version; thanks.

Thanks