Subject: [Gen-art] Last Call Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown-use-cases-02

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2015 14:58:10 -0400

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.

Tom Taylor

Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown-use-cases-02
Reviewer: Tom Taylor		
Review Date:        2015/07/04
IETF LC End Date:   2015/07/03
IESG Telechat date: 2015/07/09

Summary: Well-written. Ready with nits.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

IDNits reports five instances of control characters in the document. 
Good luck finding them!

IDNits reports a number of missing and unused references.

Sec. 1.1, second para, second-last line:
s/bit are corrupted/bit is corrupted/

Sec. 1.3: There seem to be a few missing references, where [CITE] is 
used as a stand-in. Also see [NB: CITE?] later in that section.

Sec. 2.7.2: RFC 2119 SHOULD is used, but the usual invocation of RFC 
2119 language at the start of the document is missing. The next section 
(re GIT) uses lower-case "should", and that is probably your best way 
forward. Actually, IDNits (now that I check) reports a number of other 
instances of RFC 2119 capitalization, so you'll have to decide what is 
appropriate.

Sec. 4.1: s/# MutliMarkdown Example #/# MultiMarkdown Example #/

Sec. 4.2 (beginning has this:
    ~~Oops this is some mistaken text.~~
Is that example markdown or a comment on something that has to be fixed?

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 00:26:44 +0200

Thanks for the review and for spotting these, Tom. I agree…

Authors?

Jari

On 04 Jul 2015, at 20:58, Tom Taylor <[email-masked]> wrote:

> IDNits reports five instances of control characters in the document. Good luck finding them!
> 
> Sec. 1.3: There seem to be a few missing references, where [CITE] is used as a stand-in. Also see [NB: CITE?] later in that section.
> 
> Sec. 2.7.2: RFC 2119 SHOULD is used, but the usual invocation of RFC 2119 language at the start of the document is missing. The next section (re GIT) uses lower-case "should", and that is probably your best way forward. Actually, IDNits (now that I check) reports a number of other instances of RFC 2119 capitalization, so you'll have to decide what is appropriate.
>