Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Tue, 03 February 2015 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 EC5371A1A16; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 08:26:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.31
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 t5ge9FVBYXZn; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 08:26:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A1A71A1A95; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 08:26:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD9B62CC5D; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 18:26:31 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1ydU31NRpB0o; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 18:26:31 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 314682CC4D; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 18:26:31 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C0518EF1-5738-4AA5-9225-9027409B0D5D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <025101d0347d$90b5bc10$b2213430$@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 18:26:29 +0200
Message-Id: <31D5FC82-AE95-476F-8EA9-D47A2AD29B22@piuha.net>
References: <025101d0347d$90b5bc10$b2213430$@gmail.com>
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rSrs7i_ww2q6Q3RIi0xINn8Hn1Y>
Cc: draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@tools.ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
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, 03 Feb 2015 16:26:47 -0000

Thanks for your review, Roni.

Authors, have you observed these comments, and you have any response?

Jari

On 20 Jan 2015, at 08:51, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art