Subject: [dispatch] AD Evaluation of draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 17:41:29 -0500

Hi,

This is my AD Evaluation of draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket. I have a 
few editorial comments, but nothing that should block going to IETF last 
call. I will request the last call shortly.

Thanks!

Ben.

-----------------------

-1, last paragraph: Consider citing RFC4976 for "MSRP relay". (I also 
suggest citations to 4975 and 4976 when you talk about "normal" clients 
and relays.

-5.1, first paragraph: "...messages MUST be routed
    via an MSRP WebSocket Server"

This seems more a statement of fact than a normative requirement. That 
is, it is an implication of the fact that websocket clients cannot 
directly connect to other websocket clients. Please consider removing 
the upper-case MUST.

- 5.3.1. 4th paragraph (1st after numbered list): s/event/even

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 17:52:08 -0500

One more thing: IDNits emits the following:

  -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, 
and may
      have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  
The
      disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you 
have
      been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 
rights
      to the IETF Trust.  If you are able to get all authors (current 
and
      original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the
      disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore 
this
      comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at
      http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

. Is any part of the document that old? I suspect this is due to the 
update of 4975 and 4976. Do you incorporate substantial text or examples 
from those RFCs? If not, I'm not sure we need the disclaimer.

(I vaguely recall discussing this before, but maybe that was for a 
different MSRP related draft.)

Ben.

On 10 Jun 2016, at 17:41, Ben Campbell wrote:

> few editorial comments, but nothing that should block going to IETF 
> last call. I will request the last call shortly.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
>
> -----------------------
>
> suggest citations to 4975 and 4976 when you talk about "normal" 
> clients and relays.
>