Subject: [http-state] prepping for -httpstate-cookie publication request

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:48:41 -0700

I ran -17 though idnits <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/idnits.pyht> (see 
below)

seems we need to fixup minor references stuff; we should..

- remove ref to RFC5891.

- replace ref to RFC 3548 with one to RFC 4648.

- add actual informative ref to UTS46 (<reference/> entry supplied below).

- make ref to RFC 5895 informative.

plus make other minor changes we have queued, i.e. the fixups to "5.1.2. 
Canonicalized host names" mentioned on Tue 26-Oct.

thanks,

=JeffH

###

       <reference anchor="UTS46" target="http://unicode.org/reports/tr46/">
         <front>
           <title>
             Unicode IDNA Compatibility Processing
           </title>

           <author initials="M." surname="Davis"
                   fullname="Mark Davis"/>

           <author initials="M." surname="Suignard"
                   fullname="Michel Suignard"/>

           <date year="2010" month="August" day="06"/>
         </front>
         <seriesInfo name="Unicode Technical Standards" value="# 46" />
       </reference>

###

idnits 2.12.05

tmp/draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-17.txt:
tmp/draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-17.txt(961): Found possible IPv4 address 
'2.3.2.1' in position 4; this doesn't match the suggested documentation address 
ranges specified in RFC 3330 (or successor): blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 
198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2), and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3); or the suggested 
233.252.0.0/24 example multicast address range.

   Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
   http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      No issues found here.

   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      No issues found here.

   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC3330-compliant IPv4 addresses
      in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

   Miscellaneous warnings:
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
      it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
      a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?

      RFC 2119, paragraph 2:
      "The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
       "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
       this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119."

      ... text found in draft:
      "The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
.............^
       "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
       interpreted as described in [RFC2119]."

      (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
      ID-Checklist requires).
   -- The document has a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first
      submitted on or after 10 November 2008.  Does it really need the
      disclaimer?

   Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
      to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

   == Unused Reference: 'RFC5891' is defined on line 1525, but no explicit
      reference was found in the text
      '[RFC5891]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in Applicati...'

   ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3490 (Obsoleted by RFC 5890, RFC 5891)

   ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5895

   -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2109
      (Obsoleted by RFC 2965)

   -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3548
      (Obsoleted by RFC 4648)

      Summary: 2 errors (**), 3 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).

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