Dear Per,
thank you for the useful comments. Please find replies below inline or
via commits to main directly.
Viele Grüße,
Henk for the UCCS editors
On 04.10.24 12:48, Per Andersson via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Per Andersson
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.
Result: Has nits
The document defines A CBOR Tag for Unprotected CWT Claims Sets.
It is a valuable addition to the applicable technology space.
Usage, use cases, advantages, disadvantages, security considerations,
and terms that might be unknown to the reader are presentend and
discussed clearly.
In Section 6.3. content-Format registration the following table is
presented. It seems that the ID should be only a numerical value
("601"?) instead of "TBD601".
+=======================+==========+========+=============+
| Media Type | Encoding | ID | Reference |
+=======================+==========+========+=============+
| application/uccs+cbor | - | TBD601 | Section 6.3 |
| | | | of RFCthis |
+-----------------------+----------+--------+-------------+
Fixed in commit 353b0ee (to main) aling with an added RFC editor note
about TBD601.
Nits:
* pre-existing -> preexisting
Fixed in c380637 (to main): Use US spelling
The following idnits warnings should be attended:
draft-ietf-rats-uccs-10.txt:
-(9): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii
characters in UTF-8 encoding
False positive: Indeed, beyond-ASCII is in use and is fine.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== There are 3 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.
False positive: Beyond-ASCII is fine.
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
== Missing Reference: 'RFCthis' is mentioned on line 351, but not defined
False positive: This has an RFC-editor comment to replace RFCthis by the
name of the RFC to be published.
== Missing Reference: 'I-D.bormann-cbor-draft-numbers' is mentioned on line
652, but not defined
False positive: This has an RFC-editor comment to do as discussed in the
draft and the RFC-editor comment, and to then delete the reference.
== Outdated reference: A later version (-31) exists of
draft-ietf-rats-eat-28
Indeed; this will be fixed automatically with submission of -11
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
Thanks for your contribution!
--
Per
_______________________________________________
RATS mailing list -- rats@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to rats-leave@xxxxxxxx
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
