Robert, thanks for your review. I pointed to it in my No Objection ballot. Best, Alissa > On Aug 29, 2019, at 10:38 AM, Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > 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-ietf-core-senml-etch-05 > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review Date: 2019-08-29 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-09-02 > IESG Telechat date: 2019-09-05 > > Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC, but with nits to > consider before publication > > Nits: > > Since the string "-etch-" is in the media type, it might be nice to say in the > document where it came from. > > I think the text in the interoperability considerations sections of the > registrations could be improved. You mean to talk about unrecognized keys, not > unrecognized key-value pairs. I also think the body of the RFC should have a > very short extensibility section that explicitly says you're doing a similar > thing as 8424 section 4.4 and point to that section. > > I am a little uncomfortable with the "Fragment Identification" section (4) of > this document - it feels like a "do what we mean" statement. I don't have text > to suggest. It may well be that it will be dead-obvious to an implementer what > to do, but it makes me uneasy. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
