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".