linuxwolf / bmeck-ids Goto Github PK

Reviewed by Murray Kucherawy:

• Required: "none" should be "N/A", otherwise you might be defining a parameter called "none"

• everywhere you say "See Author's Address section", add "of [this document]".

• for Encoding Requirements, Section 4.8 of RFC6838 technically says you have to say one of "7bit", "8bit", "binary" and "ascii"; sounds like you probably want "binary"?

• generally, the templates can't refer to RFC 4329 if you plan to obsolete it; they should refer to this document or something else that won't be obsolete when this is published

I have reviewed the document in anticipation of forwarding to IESG for publication. There is still one outstanding issue and once that's resolved I will ask the AD to request publication.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/bHeezFbph08KIfXGvghHbqKWe14

I have just two minor comments with regards to the "Note to Readers" section in the front of the document, and the URI section. Those sections reference a github repository for the document. Since that repository isn't necessarily stable and not associated with the IETF, I would suggest to remove those sections OR add a "Note to the RFC editor" to remove those sections prior to publication.

Regards,
Mary

The document lacks a Security Considerations section. It may be that there are no new security considerations beyond those in 4329, but if that is the case this document needs to explicitly say (and justify) that. But please consider whether it is realistic to say we’ve learned nothing new about the security considerations since 4329 was published 13 years ago. (We can expect statements to that effect to get close scrutiny from the secdir reviewer and security ADs.)

Address the comments here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/lnvyIRAfg7-Di_ynVz0D74PdkSI

There was at least one WGLC comment that this should obsolete RFC 4329 rather than update it. I recall a comment from Matt that seemed to be agreement with that change. Was there a specific decision not to make the change?

Try BSD-2Clause

No browser vendor has expressed interest in pursuing the goal parameter, so we should remove it from this draft.

cc @annevk

• §2:

  • First paragraph:

    • Missing comma after “modular programs” in the first sentence.
    • Consider s/ “now defines “ / “defines “ ( time-specific language becomes dated pretty quickly)
    • Consider a brief (no more than one sentence) explanation of the term “goal symbols”

  • 2nd paragraph: This is the first mention of “Module or “Script” grammar goals. A very brief explanation of those terms would be helpful.

• §3, 2nd paragraph:

  • Inconsistent tense.
  • consider s/“… specification is using ...”/“… specification uses ..."

Related to #18
Related to #19

• Explicitly note in the obsoleted media types that implementations should use text/javascript instead (within "Interoperability Considerations" or "Restrictions on Usage")
• Update section title "Registration" to "IANA Considerations"
• Remove 2119 reference and boilerplate
• Remove authors from "Acknowledgements"