Re: [Cbor] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic-11

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pete,

thank you for this review.

I have collected my proposed changes based on these and other comments in 

https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-magic-number/pull/21

under the commit
https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-magic-number/pull/21/commits/e476afb


> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Section 1 could use a solid edit. Here are some editorial issues that stuck out
> to me (as always, just suggested changes):
> 
> Paragraph 3 (this one is a content problem rather than strictly nits, but also
> isn't a technical issue with the document):
> 
> OLD
> 
>                                 For instance, in classical MacOS, a
>   resource fork was maintained that includes media type ("MIME type")
>   information and therefore ideally never needs to know anything about
>   the file.
> 
> NEW
> 
>                                 For instance, in classical MacOS, a
>   resource fork was maintained separately from the file data that
>   included file type information and therefore the OS ideally never
>   needed to know anything about the file data contents to determine the
>   media type.

Thanks!  (Slightly modified.)

> No "But" is required at the beginning of paragraph 4.
> 
> Paragraph 5: Change "file" to "file contents". (For what it's worth, I disagree
> with the paragraph, in that I think it's actually worse to keep the media type
> information in the data portion of the file, but I don't have a problem with
> you disagreeing with that in the introduction.)
> 
> Paragraph 8: Change the colon to a semicolon.
> 
> Paragraph 9: Replace "A third" with "An additional".
> 
> Swap paragraphs 9 & 10.
> 
> Paragraphs 13 & 14 seem confusing, if not contradictory.

I have merged them and removed the seeming contradiction.
> 
> Move paragraph 14 up after paragraph 8.
> 
> The last paragraph repeats the information in the 9th paragraph.

Actually, not really, as the last paragraph is about identified content-formats only.
I have merged the paragraph with 10 (was 9).

> Section 2.1, last paragraph: Change "has already been allocated" to "is
> described".

I’m not sure the registry “describes” anything; I have changed this to “has pro-actively been allocated”.

> Appendix C, last paragraph before C.1: This is a repeat of the last paragraph
> of section 2.3. I don't think it's necessary to repeat.

I think it is worth saying that this is the same as with Labeled CBOR Sequence, so I just shortened the text a bit.

Grüße, Carsten