Review of draft-ietf-geojson-text-sequence-03
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Mon, 23 January 2017 18:53 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736E8129496; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:53:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-geojson-text-sequence-03
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.4
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148519762543.29458.7036244337602754468.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:53:45 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/aEQiy0ONagLHxWCIdySE-KlDLJY>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-geojson-text-sequence.all@ietf.org, geojson@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:53:45 -0000
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-geojson-text-sequence-03 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 2017-01-23 IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-24 IESG Telechat date: 2017-02-02 Summary: Ready for publication as Proposed Standard, but with nits that should be addressed before proceeding The last call was issued indicating this draft is being considered for Proposed Standard (which is appropriate). The draft itself has "Informational" in its header block. That should be "Standards Track" instead. The Abstract contains the words "proposed standard". Please edit that away. You want the flexibility in the future to change the status of the RFC this will become without having to issue a new RFC editing the text. I suggest replacing "A proposed standard" with "This document defines a format" In the introduction, you say "possibly infinite". I think you mean "arbitrarily large".
- Review of draft-ietf-geojson-text-sequence-03 Robert Sparks