Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Tue, 20 January 2015 06:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F7B81B2D72; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 22:51:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VMMUXhc2LaPM; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 22:51:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22a.google.com (mail-wg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A6A01B2D68; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 22:51:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id k14so35441710wgh.1; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 22:51:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :thread-index:content-language; bh=k/gJUak+x6XeISroTWvZImvoEiqgVaSwSxYdxJihzsU=; b=JBnooS2JmBJnYGLvdLEpC+Lm3WQLZ1dLtzV0Ldz+LIpAe5TextPNmbIpPPa3kCvSkB fm8WFfENVQYDD35WS17G9Dpd4DcHw9LzOrfWgCojBPFhq6NWry/Do11lu2UK/G5jX2Qm mIZ2yeSoE4k0ZJHcKFpl51PNh6fbuEzs4LBYNixmNxamLAg6mP36lmRxd5vnA20ML4a4 HxnNK7mdfCbbCTOonzOhyAsK+2rkQCV+yD7KIe0AcVt7uLnp4659YJUI12VwxF8ACfae lpLHQ7qdzko8B+fL4CD3tfIMQXswdLV6UUkLqldU1MIgSxIzJzyrxHxoAfMRVkaUbrXW c1OQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.192.4 with SMTP id hc4mr11591257wjc.59.1421736712876; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 22:51:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from RoniE ([109.66.36.7]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gl5sm1768346wib.0.2015.01.19.22.51.50 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Jan 2015 22:51:52 -0800 (PST)
From: "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: <draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@tools.ietf.org>, <gen-art@ietf.org>, <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:51:38 +0200
Message-ID: <025101d0347d$90b5bc10$b2213430$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0252_01D0348E.543F4F60"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdA0fYNgUhqmpKDyRtGwpMvYGyxlmg==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/r7Fw3d8tSxYxwIKXXqY0xQav_qI>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 06:51:56 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

Document:  draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2015-1-17

IETF LC End Date: 2015-1-22

IESG Telechat date: 

 

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC.

 

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

 

There are two schemas used, the sppf:base and sppf:soap each have a version
number. When talking about supported version and about response codes on
supported version, is it referring to the base or soap version? There is
some text in the minorVer section but it is not clear enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nits/editorial comments:

The "complexType name="ResultCodeType" is defined in multiple subsections
(7.2.1.2 , 7.2.2.2 , .) but not in all places, should be specified only once
or in all. Also the definitions in section 7 are not consistent with the
ones in section 9 which is the formal definition.