Hi Francis, thanks for the feedback.
On 2016-02-29 15:07, Francis Dupont wrote:
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 <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 20160226 IETF LC End Date: 20160224 IESG Telechat date: 20160303 Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: - ToC 3 and B page 24: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
A quick check shows that the RFC Production Center uses both variations. I'll let them choose during AUTH48.
- 6 page 13: my spell checker complains about idempotency because it believes the term doesn't exist. Looking in the web it seems to be an accepted (and IMHO well understood) new term... In conclusion I have no concern if you keep it. Note if you have a language expert you can ask if idempotence is better (I am French so I am afraid I have a bias in favor of this alternative because it is its spelling in French :-).
ok.
- 9.2 page 17: e.g. -> e.g.,
Already rewritten in <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/23d3b09374c077fbe695b7a01ac144f0e2a1755f>.
Best regards, Julian _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
