Hi, On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 5:40 AM Tim Chown via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > Meaning pointers to registration RFCs like this one if they exist? > 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. > Does this apply? This isn't registering a suffix, but the media type itself. > 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? > I can make this opensource@xxxxxxxxxx or look for another generic contact if that helps. > — > Tim > > > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
