Hi,

I have reviewed this document as part of the operational directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the
operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not
addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG
review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments
just like any other last call comments.

The document is ready to be published. A very minor purely editorial
suggestion:

- I suggest to simplify the document subsection structure in section 1
  by rearranging things a bit (and I note that 2 out of 3 sentences in
  1.1.1 are not about syntax notation but about terminology). Here is
  the proposed new text (but yeah I know it is a stylistic issue, feel
  free to ignore).

  1.1.  Terminology and Notation

     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 [RFC2119].

     The terms protection space and realm are defined in Section 2.2 of
     [RFC7235].

     The terms (character) repertoire and character encoding scheme are
     defined in Section 2 of [RFC6365].

     This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)
     notation of [RFC5234].

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <

http://www.jacobs-university.de/

>