Reviewer: Pete Resnick Review result: Ready with Issues I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic-11 Reviewer: Pete Resnick Review Date: 2022-04-15 IETF LC End Date: 2022-04-15 IESG Telechat date: 2022-04-21 Summary: Some mostly nit/editorial comments that really should be taken care of, but no showstoppers. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: Section 1 could use a solid edit. Here are some editorial issues that stuck out to me (as always, just suggested changes): Paragraph 3 (this one is a content problem rather than strictly nits, but also isn't a technical issue with the document): OLD For instance, in classical MacOS, a resource fork was maintained that includes media type ("MIME type") information and therefore ideally never needs to know anything about the file. NEW For instance, in classical MacOS, a resource fork was maintained separately from the file data that included file type information and therefore the OS ideally never needed to know anything about the file data contents to determine the media type. No "But" is required at the beginning of paragraph 4. Paragraph 5: Change "file" to "file contents". (For what it's worth, I disagree with the paragraph, in that I think it's actually worse to keep the media type information in the data portion of the file, but I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with that in the introduction.) Paragraph 8: Change the colon to a semicolon. Paragraph 9: Replace "A third" with "An additional". Swap paragraphs 9 & 10. Paragraphs 13 & 14 seem confusing, if not contradictory. Move paragraph 14 up after paragraph 8. The last paragraph repeats the information in the 9th paragraph. Section 2.1, last paragraph: Change "has already been allocated" to "is described". Appendix C, last paragraph before C.1: This is a repeat of the last paragraph of section 2.3. I don't think it's necessary to repeat. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
