[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02

2019-11-26 Thread Robert Sparks via Datatracker
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

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02

2019-11-26 Thread Martin Thomson
Thanks for the review Robert, On Wed, Nov 27, 2019, at 09:47, Robert Sparks via Datatracker wrote: > Neither the document nor the shepherds write-up acknowledge or explain the > replacement of RFC6838 with RFC3986 for a reference for specifying fragment > identifier syntax and semantics (hence dro

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02

2019-11-26 Thread Robert Sparks
Hi Martin - Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 26, 2019, at 5:16 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > > Thanks for the review Robert, > >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019, at 09:47, Robert Sparks via Datatracker wrote: >> Neither the document nor the shepherds write-up acknowledge or explain the >> replacement of RFC6

Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02

2019-11-26 Thread Mark Nottingham
On 27 Nov 2019, at 12:54 pm, Robert Sparks wrote: > > To be sure, this isn’t a huge deal, but it really would help to not make the > readers not guess why the change was made. Do we expect most readers to be comparing the documents so closely? This is an 'obsoletes', not an 'updates'. Cheers

Re: [Gen-art] [art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02

2019-11-26 Thread Carsten Bormann
On Nov 27, 2019, at 02:56, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > Do we expect most readers to be comparing the documents so closely? This is > an 'obsoletes', not an 'updates'. Speaking for myself as a reader only: Yes. Grüße, Carsten ___ Gen-art mailing list

Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] [art] Genart last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02

2019-11-26 Thread Mark Nottingham
> On 27 Nov 2019, at 1:13 pm, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > On Nov 27, 2019, at 02:56, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >> Do we expect most readers to be comparing the documents so closely? This is >> an 'obsoletes', not an 'updates'. > > Speaking for myself as a reader only: Yes. My concern is th

Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] [art] Genart last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02

2019-11-26 Thread Paul Hoffman
On 26 Nov 2019, at 18:13, Carsten Bormann wrote: On Nov 27, 2019, at 02:56, Mark Nottingham wrote: Do we expect most readers to be comparing the documents so closely? This is an 'obsoletes', not an 'updates'. Speaking for myself as a reader only: Yes. Yes for me as well. Because 7320 has

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02

2019-11-26 Thread Mark Nottingham
Hi Robert, thanks for the review. Responses below. > On 27 Nov 2019, at 9:47 am, Robert Sparks via Datatracker > wrote: > > 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