Hi Elwyn, thank you for these comments. These are now addressed in the editor’s copy on github, specifically in https://github.com/cbor-wg/array-tags/commit/f63c0301c481ab773c16b96a9b0eb63456554049 Details below. > On Sep 6, 2019, at 21:33, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review result: Ready with Nits > > 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-array-tags-07 > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review Date: 2019-09-06 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-09-05 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > Ready with a couple of nits. Apologies for slightly late delivery. > > Major issues: > None > > Minor issues: > None > > Nits/editorial comments: > s1, para 2: s/have received/has received/ > > s1, para 3: s/This also can/This can also/ > > s1.1, last para: s/whether that/as to whether that/ I put these in (oops, missed one, now in https://github.com/cbor-wg/array-tags/commit/4490e8b6f9f157779783f645c2c4ee6f9e749f74 ). > > s2.1, 2nd para after Table 2 (top of page 5): > OLD: > It can be computed > inversely to the previous formula from the length of the byte string > in bytes: "bytelength >> (f + ll)". > NEW: > It can be computed from the length of the byte string comprising the > representation of the array by inverting the previous formula: "bytelength >>> (f + ll)". > ENDS This misses the “in bytes”, which may be obvious to many, but should be said. Now: It can be computed from the length, in bytes, of the byte string comprising the representation of the array by inverting the previous formula: `bytelength >> (f + ll)`. > s2.1: The terms endianness, big endian and litle endian are jargon, if pretty > well known jargon, but I don't know if they are considered to be adequately > well understood to avoid the need for a reference or an explanation of what is > meant. Very good point; we sometimes get too mired in our jargon. Now at the end of the terminology section: The terms "big endian" and "little endian" are used to indicate a most significant byte first (MSB first) representation of integers, and a least significant byte first (LSB first) representation, respectively. I think we can tolerate the one occurrence of “endianness” before that, as that is just in a list of examples. Grüße, Carsten
