Thank you very much Carsten for addressing my comments
Liebe Grüße,
Ines
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 7:59 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
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
