Subject: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis-05

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 09:49:24 -0700

Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review result: Ready with Nits

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-rfc5988bis-??
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2017-05-24
IETF LC End Date: 2017-05-26
IESG Telechat date: 2017-06-08

Summary:
This is a well written document, and ready for publication.

I found an IANA consideration a little confusing, but I am sure that
either IANA understand it or will ask for clarification.

Major issues:

Minor issues:
I found the IANA considerations confusing. Specifically it looks like
Section 4.1 refers to 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-headers.xhtml
although it does not say so in so many words.

Assuming that to be the case the IANA text in section 4.1 (which
copies the text from RFC5688)
does not line up column by column with the text in the registry. I
assume that 
[RFC&rfc.number;] means [This RFC], but do not see where Author/Change
control fits in the 
registry.

Nits/editorial comments: 

In the intro and the abstract the text "a model for indicate the
relationships" is not good grammar.

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 08:16:25 +1000

Hi Stewart,

Thanks for the review. Responses below.

> although it does not say so in so many words.

It says 

> This specification updates the Message Header registry entry for "Link" in HTTP [RFC3864] to refer to this document.

Are you suggesting that it be updated to say "Permanent Message Header Field Names registry", or something else?

> Assuming that to be the case the IANA text in section 4.1 (which copies the text from RFC5688) does not line up column by column with the text in the registry. I assume that 
> [RFC&rfc.number;] means [This RFC],

Yes; already fixed in source.

> but do not see where Author/Change control fits in the registry.

It's required by the registration template in RFC3864.

> relationships" is not good grammar.

Already fixed in source.

Thanks again!

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/