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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 16 April 2011 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 8CB13E06B9; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 06:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 td6czDip2G8V; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 06:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2163EE06B5; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 06:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.elandsys.com ([41.136.238.139]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3GDkHhk018537; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 06:46:23 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1302961586; bh=6Y+SVYxi38nC9+uv1qrZOpVjoXc=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=kzmdGMCrkqmPvkEimXIP5X67YXGw/AdCsA0uEsbg6whxYj1h3wcQZidBwJCnynqBY KJll5Z2cSd/ICAh8aWlLgN3l1ucE3yWYKdRBF+SCccQgeozixtDuJqThw99NRYpCf9 V1heLTn3V/g2RRKs6gOWONGVX4JvxR2AGSOVGil0=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110416051507.05ba6868@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 06:43:30 -0700
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: Randall Gellens <randy@qualcomm.com>, Per Frojdh <Per.Frojdh@ericsson.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: [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: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 13:46:35 -0000

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.

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.

   "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".

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".

   "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".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy