|
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-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme-16 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 21-Nov-2014 IETF LC End Date: 25-Nov-2014 IESG Telechat date: 4-Dec-2014 Summary: Almost ready, but has nits that should be addressed before publication as a Proposed Standard Nits/editorial comments: First: (For Barry as sponsoring AD and shepherd): I think you might want to say more about how this and the related PWG documents are being handled cross-organization. An RFC that normatively updates a document under some other organization's change control is an unusual thing. Usually there are parallel documents coordinating this. Is there such a parallel PWG doc this time? Why aren't there RFC variants of the PWG docs (we've republished other organization's documents in the RFC series before...) Second: The 6 step construction in section 3 is a little odd. Why aren't steps 3-5 collapsed into one step that says "go do what https: says to do"? Split this way, especially with the repeated guidance in the security considerations section pointing somewhat loosely to 7320 and 5246 for things that "can be used to address this threat" looks like an opportunity for someone to get creative with how they check the certificate supplied by the server against the name in the URI. If you don't want anything but what happens in https to happen, I think it needs to be more clearly stated. Otherwise, doesn't this go off into RFC 6125 territory? Lastly (and much smaller nits): There are several callouts from the text that look like references that are not represented in the references section. ID nits complains about all of these, and should make them easy to find and fix. For example (from section 1.2):
This reference is oddly constructed - please check early with the
RFC Editor on whether theywill take this, or want something a little different.
This line is wrong, and is causing idnits to complain once where it
shouldn't.(The thing in the [] should be RFC7235, not 4):
|