Thanks Stewart. I entered a No Objection ballot and referred to your review.

Alissa

> On Apr 6, 2019, at 5:26 AM, Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> 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-core-multipart-ct-03
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review Date: 2019-04-06
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-08
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> 
> Apart from one figure that was difficult to understand and some trivial nits
> this is well written and is ready for publication.
> 
> Major issues: None
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
>         __________       __________       __________
>        |          |     |          |     |          |
>   ---->|   2.05   |---->|  2.05 /  |---->|  4.xx /  |
>        | Pending  |     |   2.03   |     |   5.xx   |
>        |__________|     |__________|     |__________|
>           ^   \ \          ^    \           ^
>            \__/  \          \___/          /
>                   \_______________________/
> 
>                   Figure 2: Sequence of Notifications:
> SB> Not my specialty, but I don't see what message gets sent
> SB> to who in the above and RFC7641 has no similar diagram.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
>   accompanying it.  In such a case, the sequence in which these occur
>   may not be relevant to the application.  This specification allows to
> SB> typo - word missing
>  indicate that an optional part is not present by substituting a null
>   value for the representation of the part.
> 
> ==========
> 
>   The collection is encoded as a CBOR [RFC7049] array with an even
> SB> CBOR needs expanding on first use (it is not on the well known list)
>   number of elements.
> 
> ==========
> 
>   Person & email address to contact for further information:
>      iesg&ietf.org
> SB> Shouldn't that be [email protected]?
> 
> ==========
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to