Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert, thanks for the review. Responses below.

> On 27 Nov 2019, at 9:47 am, Robert Sparks via Datatracker <[e-mail]> 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-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date: 2019-11-26
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-12-16
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: Ready for publication as a BCP but with nits to consider during the
> approval process
> 
> Nits:
> 
> Neither the document nor the shepherds write-up acknowledge or explain the
> replacement of RFC6838 with RFC3986 for a reference for specifying fragment
> identifier syntax and semantics (hence dropping the reference to 6838). It
> would be nice to have something captured in the record that supports/explains
> this change.

See my previous e-mail in this thread for the explanation.

> Near that change, there is a typo, currently saying "fragment identiers'
> syntax" (should be "identifiers'")

Fixed in source.

> It might be good to capture in the "Note to Readers" that the RFC Editor should
> also remove Section 6.3 (URIs) since all the references to them will be removed
> with the removal of this Note.

Good catch; done.

I've also updated the BCP115 reference to BCP35, as per <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7320>. I note that tools.ietf.org doesn't appear to be updated to make the relationship between these clear.

Cheers and thanks for the review,

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