Review of draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix-02

Peter Yee <> Sat, 10 December 2016 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 048581289B0; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 11:32:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Peter Yee <>
To: <>
Subject: Review of draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix-02
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.39.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 11:32:45 -0800
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 19:32:46 -0000

Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Nits

This draft is looking better than the first two.  It's in line with
the other structured syntax suffix drafts.  The only comment I have

Page 4, IANA Considerations, Contact name: The description of that
email address ( is “Applications and Real-Time Area
Discussion”, not "Applications and Real-Time Area Working Group". 
It’s not a WG that I am aware of.  Did you want this to use this
address or might you prefer appsawg?  APPSAWG is listed as the “ART
Area General Applications Working Group”.  RFC 6839 references “Apps
Area Working Group (” in its IANA Considerations
section, so I can see how you might have gotten to what you used, but
I don't think that's correct.  Give some consideration to the right
name and email address for this item and the Author/Change controller.