Re: [Cbor] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-06

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ines,

thank you for these comments!

Good catch with the 0b010_01001!  
I should know better (made the same kind of mistake in RFC 7049).

I actually kept in a second expansion of SDNV in Section 2; possibly the RFC editor will strike that, but I find it useful.

All the below are now in https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-oid/commit/9c90d8d

Grüße, Carsten


> On 2021-04-06, at 18:21, Ines Robles via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> Summary:
> 
> The document defines CBOR tags for object identifiers (OIDs).  The document is
> well written.
> 
> Few minor questions/comments.
> 
> Major Issues: None
> 
> Minor Issues: None
> 
> Nits:
> 
> - It would be nice to expand SDNV in section 1.1 instead of Section 2.
> 
> - Section 3.2 - Figure 4-MIB relative object identifier in CBOR:
> 
> 0b010_01001 should be 0b010_00011 ? for major type 2, additional information 3
> bytes
> 
> - Section 7.1:
> 
> -- In order to mention the registry, maybe smth like
> 
>  to assign the CBOR tags --> to assign in the CBOR tags registry the following
>  tags....
> 
> -- It would be nice to have the table with the same structure as the registry
> table (add reference column like in Section 7.2), I think template column does
> not apply here.
> 
> - Section 7.2:
> 
> -- In order to mention the registry, maybe smth similar as Section 7.1?
> 
> Thank you for this document,
> 
> Ines.
> 
>