Pete, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Lars > On 2022-4-16, at 0:49, Pete Resnick via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
