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

[David Singer <[e-mail]>]

Pete

the [13k] was an editing error, should have been an RFC reference, I didn't catch it when fixing up after rfc2xml.  Thanks for catching it.

I can't find a perfect checker online, but Bill's ABNF checker <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/bap/abnf.cgi> says, after changing := to =

-  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ 

Bill's ABNF Parser

No errors during parsing.

so I *think* we're OK

On May 17, 2011, at 14:56 , Pete Resnick wrote:

> On 5/12/11 6:47 PM, David Singer wrote:
> 
>> -04 uploaded. what's next?
> 
> Almost time for me to Last Call the document. A few things:
> 
> I found one nit in -04 <http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gellens-mime-bucket-bis-04.txt>:
> 
>  == Missing Reference: '13k' is mentioned on line 148, but not defined
> 
> I see that you used regular BNF and not ABNF. That's OK, but I would appreciate you (a) using a tool to syntax check the BNF and (b) pointing me to the output of that tool. My BNF is OK, but not great.
> 
> I will do a review of the document before sending it for Last Call, but I would appreciate if one of you could start writing up the announcement text. As it says in RFC 4858:
> 
> 
>          The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
>          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
>          Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in the
>          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
>          announcement contains the following sections:
> 
>          Technical Summary
>             Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
>             and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
>             an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>             or introduction.

I think the document abstract should meet this need.

> 
>          Working Group Summary
>             Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
>             For example, was there controversy about particular points
>             or were there decisions where the consensus was
>             particularly rough?

It's worth noting that it was uncontroversial enough to elicit very few comments.

> 
>          Document Quality
>             Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
>             significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>             implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
>             merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
>             e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
>             conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
>             there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
>             what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
>             Review, on what date was the request posted?

The codecs parameter is getting increasingly popular, and the MPEG/3G DASH specifications would like to have a stable reference for the 'profiles' parameter.

> 
>          Personnel
>             Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
>             Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
>             experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
>             in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'
> 
> -- 
> Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
> Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.