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(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail