[apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-core-coap-14

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate (appsdir) 
reviewer for this draft.  (For background on appsdir, please see 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive.  Please wait for direction from your document shepherd 
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-core-coap-14
Title: Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
Reviewer: Xuan He and Alexey Melnikov
Review Date: April 4, 2013
IETF Last Call Date: 27 March 2013
IESG Telechat Date: not known

Summary: This draft is nearly ready for publication as an Standards 
Track RFC.

Major Issues: none.

Minor:

In Section 3, version number field: have you thought about backward 
compatibility rules for future versions (if any) and version negotiation 
rules?

In Section 4.6: is a SHOULD requirement on IP MTU actually valid in this 
document? IMHO, you can't redefine what relevant RFCs say about that.

In 5.10.8, last para: wouldn't it be more correct to say that 
preconditions must be tested after all other verification is performed? 
If not, what is the intent of the MAY?

In 6.4: why is URI's default encoding is UTF-8 and not ASCII? URIs can't 
contain 8bit data. Or did you mean IRIs? (Hopefully you haven't!)

In 6.4: 8/9 - it would be correct to say octet instead of "character" 
when discussing %-decoding. Unicode characters can be represented as 
multiple octets in UTF-8, each octet would be %-encoded separately.


Nits:

In 5.4.6: Strange alignment of figure 10. Should it be center aligned?

In 7.1: the section title is "Service Discovery", but the section is 
talking about "server discovery". These are used as synonyms, but this 
might be confusing to non native English speakers.

In 12.2 Page82: There is a table below Table 6 and without any number.