Hi Ines, thank you for these comments! Good catch with the 0b010_01001! I should know better (made the same kind of mistake in RFC 7049). I actually kept in a second expansion of SDNV in Section 2; possibly the RFC editor will strike that, but I find it useful. All the below are now in https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-oid/commit/9c90d8d Grüße, Carsten > On 2021-04-06, at 18:21, Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Ines Robles > Review result: Ready with Nits > > Summary: > > The document defines CBOR tags for object identifiers (OIDs). The document is > well written. > > Few minor questions/comments. > > Major Issues: None > > Minor Issues: None > > Nits: > > - It would be nice to expand SDNV in section 1.1 instead of Section 2. > > - Section 3.2 - Figure 4-MIB relative object identifier in CBOR: > > 0b010_01001 should be 0b010_00011 ? for major type 2, additional information 3 > bytes > > - Section 7.1: > > -- In order to mention the registry, maybe smth like > > to assign the CBOR tags --> to assign in the CBOR tags registry the following > tags.... > > -- It would be nice to have the table with the same structure as the registry > table (add reference column like in Section 7.2), I think template column does > not apply here. > > - Section 7.2: > > -- In order to mention the registry, maybe smth similar as Section 7.1? > > Thank you for this document, > > Ines. > > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
