Elwyn, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Lars > On Apr 10, 2023, at 00:17, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review result: Not Ready > > 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-httpapi-yaml-mediatypes-04 > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review Date: 2023-04-09 > IETF LC End Date: 2023-04-10 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: The document is not ready for approval mainly because the registry > specifications are not in a form where IANA can simply cut and paste them into > the resistry database. IANA have called this out during their review. > > Major issues: > As noted in the IANA review, the text for the registry updates is not in a > state where it can simply be cut and pasted into the registry entries by IANA. > It contains references to sections in the document that are not in the notional > registry entry section. This requires major reworking. > > Minor issues: > The figures in the document consist of plain text and it is not easy to see > where the figure text starts in the text or htmlized versions. I am not quite > sure how this can best be resolved but some delineator at the start of the > figure would be helpful. Maybe a YAML comment at the start of the figure text. > > Nits/editorial comments: > General: s/e.g./e.g.,/ (6 instances) > > Abstract: Suggest adding "intended to be used to identify document components > formatted according to the YAML Ain’t Markup Language (YAML™) specification" to > te end of the abstract. > > s1, para 1: s/the relevant/a corresponding/, s/previously had not/had not > previously/ > > s1, para 1: Add a reference to BCP13/RFC 6838 i.e.. [MEDIATYPE] after "suffix". > > s1.2, para 2: s/section1.2.1/(see Section 1.2.1)/ > > s1.2.1, para 2: s/while percent-encoding those characters not allowed/but > percent-encoding of those characters is not allowed/ > > s1.2.1, first bullet: the term 'serialization detail' ought to be in the list > of YAML terms in s1.1. > > s4.2. para 1: s/can infinite-loop traversing the YAML representation graph at > some point, for example:/can result in an infinite-loop when traversing the > YAML representation graph at some point, for example:/ > > s4.2, first bullet: s/serialize it JSON/serialize it as JSON/ > > s4.2, para after Fig 4: s/representaion graph/representation graph/ > > s4.2, para after Fig 4: Suggest: s/"billion laughs" problem/"billion laughs" > or "Exponential Entity Expansion" problem/ > > s5: IANA has not yet updated the registries. This section should be worded as > requests for IANA to perform the updates. As mentioned above, the text in > sections 2.1 and 2.2 is not in a state where IANA can use it to update the > registries. > > s6: I personally find the mix of reference tag formats for RFCs, where some use > the RFCxxxx format and others are relevant text strings irritating. I would > prefer for all RFC references to be named RFCxxxx. > > Appendix B: Acknowledgements and Authors' Addresses should be provided as > sections within the body of the document rather than in an Appendix. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
