AD review of draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-10

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

 

Here is my AD review of draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-10. I am CC’ing the ietf list for public archival of the review. Please note that I am not an expert in brotli or compression, so I focus more on clarifications and process questions.

 

To the authors: I’d like to see an update to the document before moving forward.

To everyone else: reviews are still welcome (see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fxN6lFIpFuOwKsmYVl1RU7it9IY ).

 

Thanks,
Francesca

 

Please remove the reference link to brotli in the abstract:

OLD:

and a container format to brotli [RFC7932]. Shared

NEW:

and a container format to brotli. Shared

 

Please add an IANA Consideration section. Even if the section is empty, the document should contain one. See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html#section-9.1.

 

I think this document should "Update" RFC 7932. The "Update" header tag is flexible in its usage, and doesn't necessarily mean that the updating document is a required feature of the original document ("extension" is a valid use of "Update"), instead it creates a forward link from the original doc to the update. The question in this case if having such a link from 7932 would be useful for readers of 7932. I tend to say yes.

 

The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year. Please update.

 

Please list RFC 7932 as a Normative reference, rather than Informative.

 

Section 1.2

 

> Familiarity with the technique of LZ77 coding is helpful but not required.

 

It would be good to add an Informative reference for LZ77 coding.

 

Section 1.5 and 1.5.1

 

This seems a duplication of Sections 1.5 and 1.5.1 of RFC 7932 - why not just mention that these sections apply for this document as well, rather than repeat text? Is there any particular reason for restating them?

 

Section 5

 

Just a note about readability: depending on indentations only in this way might make it easier for an implementer to make mistakes. Maybe a figure would help.

 

Section 7

 

> May point to any chunk with contenst (data or metadata)

 

nit: s/contenst/content

 

Sections 8.4.X

 

s/chapter/Section

 

Section 8.4.12. Chunk ordering

 

This section's title has not been formatted properly.

 

Section 9

 

> The CRIME attack

 

Reference needed.

 


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux