Reviewer: Tim Chown Review result: Has Nits 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. This draft serves as the IETF standards document through which the WebP image format is registered with IANA. The document is ready for publication with Nits to be addressed. Note I am not overly familiar with such registration procedure, but have read through RFC6838 since being assigned this draft for review, given 6838 defines the registration requirements. General comments I think the abstract should say this document provides the WebP media type registration with IANA, as required by RFC 6838, not just what WebP is. The draft includes pointers to the specifications for GIF, JPG and PNG but it might be useful to confirm which documents (or additional documents) serve the registration function for those formats. In RFC6838 section 4.6, the security requirements are detailed (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6838#section-4.6). I don’t think these have all been addressed in this document. Section 4.6 for example says that the draft MUST state whether “active content” is employed or not, and if it is, detail steps taken, but I don’t see that here. Similarly it SHOULD discuss compression. I’d suggest a quick review of 4.6 for compliance. I don’t see the IANA registry cited in this document - it is mentioned in Section 5 but an explicit pointer would use useful. I believe it’s the one at https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml I also looked at compliance of this draft in Section 2.1 with Section 6.2 of RFC 6838. I think this draft should explicitly include the Full Name and suffix used, and while the subtype name listed is also the suffix, perhaps make that explicit. Finally, I see personal email contacts included, though RFC 6838 says “The "owner" of a media type registered in the standards tree is assumed to be the standards-related organization itself.”, so should there be a more generic google contact or owner listed? — Tim -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
