[NNTP] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-nntpext-streaming-05

[Scott Hollenbeck]

Here are my pre-last call evaluation comments for
draft-ietf-nntpext-streaming:

Abstract: an abstract must be able to stand in isolation from the rest of
the spec, so references shouldn't be included.  Please replace [NNTP] with
"(NNTP)" and [NNTP-COMMON] with "RFC 2980".

Section 2.2, third paragraph: "over 95% acceptance may be a reasonable
metric in some configurations".  Please consider using a word other than
"may" in this sentence (and anywhere else 2119 directives are used in
lower-case form) because some people aren't sure if you are using the word
as a 2119 directive or not.  The IESG also appears to be split on this
issue, so I find it best to use synonyms if a directive isn't intended.

Section 7.1: Please consider updating the [ABNF] reference to use
draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis instead of RFC 2234.  The IESG recently
approved draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis to obsolete 2234.  It's in the RFC
Editor queue.

None of these are significant.  I will start the last call.  Please consider
these in the same context as any other comments received during the last
call process.

-Scott-