[Cbor] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-ietf-cbor-sequence-01: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cbor-sequence-01: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-sequence/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2

   o  Otherwise, decode a single CBOR data item from the bytes of the
      CBOR sequence, and insert the resulting CBOR data model value at
      the start of the result of decoding the rest of the bytes as a
      CBOR sequence.  (A streaming decoder would therefore simply
      deliver zero or more CBOR data model values, each of which as soon
      as the bytes making it up are available.)

nit: I think s/each of which/each of which is delivered/, or just take Barry's
suggestion that addresses the nit differently.

Section 3

   The use case for the "+cbor-seq" structured syntax suffix is the same
   as for "+cbor": It SHOULD be used by a media type when parsing the

nit: if the use case is literally "the same as" for "+cbor" then there
would seem to be literally no value in having "+cbor-seq".  So perhaps
"essentially the same as" or similar would be more appropriate?

Section 5

I might note that when COSE is applied to the elements of a sequence,
the cryptographic protection is on a per-element basis, and thus there
is no guarantee of relationship between level of protection, source
authentication, time of generation, etc., across members of the
sequence.

Section 6.1

It's probably best to treat the following as a side note and thus not an
actionable comment, but couldn't the URL fragment fairly easily be used
to extract numbered elements of the sequence?