Subject: [drinks] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:31:46 -0800

Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

All editorial. Note that I did not review sections 9 & 10.

1 or 2: Might be nice to define "SPPPoS" for "SPP Protocol over SOAP".
Would save a lot of space and make things easier to read.

3:

OLD
   This document RECOMMENDS SOAP 1.2 [SOAPREF] or higher, and WSDL 1.1
   [WSDLREF] or higher.
NEW
   SOAP 1.2 [SOAPREF] or higher, and WSDL 1.1 [WSDLREF] or higher are
   RECOMMENDED by this document.
END

4: s/compliant with this document/of this protocol

5ff: I don't see how the word "conforming" adds anything to this
document. Instead of "conforming SPPPoS clients/servers MUST do X", why
not say "SPPPoS clients/servers MUST do X"?

7: Title: s/SPP Protocol SOAP Data Structures/SPP Protocol over SOAP Data
Structures