Subject: [weirds] Comments on draft-ietf-weirds-redirects

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:51:53 -0700

Hi again,

I've reviewed this document.  It appears to be incomplete, which pretty
much means we need to finish it this week or abandon it.  In addition to
that concern, I have the following change suggestions for the WG to
consider:

1) In the Abstract, I suggest removing the first three paragraphs.
Summaries of why we're doing this work appear in some of the other
documents already.

2) Also in the abstract, the last sentence needs spaces before the
parentheses, and needs to end with a period.

3) In the Introduction, HTTP needs an RFC reference and should be expanded
on first use.

4) Also in the Introduction, change "I-D" to "document", since it won't be
an I-D for much longer.  :-)

5) Section 1.3 has a "should" in it.  Do we intend it as a SHOULD?  If so,
when would one choose to do something else?

6) Also in Section 1.3, we say "could provide".  Could it do something
else?  Aren't we defining the intended way to do redirects here?

7) Section 1.4 appears to have two titles.  Please delete one of them.

8) The first paragraph of Section 2.1 appears to be malformed or
incomplete.  What's "TBC"?

9) Also in Section 2.1, "AS" needs to be defined before it's used.

10) Also in Section 2.1, change "provide" to "provides".

11) Also in Section 2.1, might the example be best redone using RFC6890
address space?

12) Section 2.2 appears to be incomplete.  Do you have planned text to add
here?

-MSK