Re: [apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-gellens-mime-bucket-bis-03

Randall Gellens <randy@qualcomm.com> Sun, 17 April 2011 21:55 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2946E0687; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 14:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q2JSsPu8JLq9; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 14:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CC2CE065F; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 14:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=randy@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1303077301; x=1334613301; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:date:to:from: subject:cc:mime-version:content-type:x-random-sig-tag: x-originating-ip; z=Message-ID:=20<p06240624c9d0cd69eff3@[10.10.34.68]> |In-Reply-To:=20<6.2.5.6.2.20110416051507.05ba6868@elandn ews.com>|References:=20<6.2.5.6.2.20110416051507.05ba6868 @elandnews.com>|X-Mailer:=20Eudora=20for=20Mac=20OS=20X |Date:=20Sun,=2017=20Apr=202011=2010:34:07=20-0700|To:=20 S=20Moonesamy=20<sm+ietf@elandsys.com>,=20<apps-discuss@i etf.org>|From:=20Randall=20Gellens=20<randy@qualcomm.com> |Subject:=20Re:=20Apps-team=20review=20of=20draft-gellens -mime-bucket-bis-03|CC:=20Randall=20Gellens=20<randy@qual comm.com>,=20David=20Singer=20<singer@apple.com>,=20Per =0D=0A=20Frojdh=20<Per.Frojdh@ericsson.com>,=20<iesg@ietf .org>|MIME-Version:=201.0|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B =20charset=3D"us-ascii"=3B=20format=3Dflowed |X-Random-Sig-Tag:=201.0b28|X-Originating-IP:=20[172.30.4 8.1]; bh=acoeIHBPK4s4/H8B6jIyLL6oAmcT6MYtcvJKK/MpKXM=; b=jF38CkyVPxhDlErP7GVHeF3ngHKuUg9WDIBON5WxL5QmuYBF052PTPcr Gl/niSL7g2C+3jOe3cAJRolMFdNpQ8gvlXskWPLOP3IbOLip7MCHVpxs4 JWo7O1FsUn75jvuHHT6A/nzH7gyA2S+CptdbpR6aMMpbc+E/KJUuKVzkP M=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6319"; a="86308910"
Received: from ironmsg02-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.16]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 17 Apr 2011 14:55:00 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,227,1301900400"; d="scan'208";a="136037732"
Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by ironmsg02-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 17 Apr 2011 14:55:00 -0700
Received: from [10.10.34.68] (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 14:52:22 -0700
Message-ID: <p06240624c9d0cd69eff3@[10.10.34.68]>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110416051507.05ba6868@elandnews.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110416051507.05ba6868@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:34:07 -0700
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
From: Randall Gellens <randy@qualcomm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1]
Cc: Randall Gellens <randy@qualcomm.com>, Per Frojdh <Per.Frojdh@ericsson.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-gellens-mime-bucket-bis-03
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:55:03 -0000

Hi sm,

Thanks for the helpful review.  I appreciate it.

All: Please see below for my thoughts:

At 6:43 AM -0700 4/16/11, S Moonesamy wrote:

>  Hello,
>
>  I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer 
> for this draft (for background on apps-review, please see 
> http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team).
>
>  Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call 
> comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your 
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>
>  Document: draft-gellens-mime-bucket-bis-03
>  Reviewer: S. Moonesamy
>  Review Date: April 16, 2011
>  IETF Last Call Date: Unknown
>  IESG Telechat Date: Unknown
>
>  Summary:
>
>  This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard 
> but has a few nits that should be fixed before publication.
>
>  The Codecs Parameter for "Bucket" Media Types was specified in RFC 
> 4281.  This draft specifies the Codecs and Profiles Parameters for 
> "Bucket" Media Types.  As it is a significant change from RFC 4281, 
> it does not fit the requirements specified in RFC 2026 for Draft 
> Standard.  Please refer to RFC 5657 for additional information 
> about how to advance a protocol to Draft Standard.
>
>  Please note that I have not read ISO/IEC 14496-15:2010, a normative 
> reference, as it is not freely available.
>
>  Major Issues:
>
>  None
>
>  Minor Issues:
>
>  None
>
>  Nits:
>
>  draft-gellens-mime-bucket-bis-03 obsoletes RFC 4281 but there is no 
> mention of that in the Abstract Section or the rest of the document.

There is a document header for it, but I agree that for clarify, 
there should be a statement to this effect in the text.  My 
suggestion is to add text at the end of the second paragraph of the 
Abstract (which starts 'This document specifies two parameters, 
"codecs" and "profiles"'.  The new text can say something along the 
lines of 'RFC 4281 added the "codecs" parameter, which this document 
retains in a backwards compatible manor; the "profiles" parameter is 
added by this document.'

I think this makes the situation clear to those readers who aren't 
familiar with RFC 4281

>
>  In Section 3.1:
>
>    "An element MAY include an octet that must be encoded in order to
>     comply with [RFC2045]"
>
>  I suggest capitalizing the "must" as key words are capitalized in 
> that sentence.

This is a little tricky, because the "MAY include" in normative in 
this document (this document is imposing the rule) while the "must be 
encoded in order to comply" is descriptive; it describes the octet to 
which the rest of the clause applies.  I think simply capitalizing 
the "must" in this instance would make the text less clear.   What 
would people (especially my other authors) think about using wording 
such as:

     An element MAY include an octet that [RFC2045] REQUIRES to be
     encoded.  In this case, [RFC2231] is used:

>
>    "Note that, when the [RFC2231] form is used, the percent
>     sign, asterisk, and single quote characters have special meaning and
>     so must themselves be encoded."
>
>  I suggest capitalizing the "must".

I agree.


>
>  In Section 4.2:
>
>    "An element MAY include an octet that must be encoded in order to
>     comply with [RFC2045]"
>
>  I suggest capitalizing the "must".

I suggest using the wording from above:

     An element MAY include an octet that [RFC2045] REQUIRES to be
     encoded.  In this case, [RFC2231] is used:

>
>    "Note that, when the [RFC2231] form is used,
>     the percent sign, asterisk, and single quote characters have special
>     meaning and so must themselves be encoded."
>
>  I suggest capitalizing the "must".

I agree.


-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
He who would travel happily must travel light.  --Antoine St. Exuperey