Re: [Cbor] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic-11: (with COMMENT)

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Zahed,

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/c2fa2d2

Grüße, Carsten


[…]
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for working on this document. I kind of like the question/answer style
> of writing the document.
> 
> Some comments/questions below, and I think addressing them would help improving
> the document.
> 
> - Section 2.1: it say's
> 
>      This tag needs to be allocated by the author of the CBOR Protocol
> 
>   it was not clear to me if "this tag" is the same tag that needs IANA
>   registration or not. It needs some clarification text on that.

Well, the whole Section is about the "The CBOR Protocol Specific Tag”.

I clarified this into:

>> Allocation of the CBOR tag needs to be initiated by the author of the CBOR
>> Protocol, who can provide a proposed tag number.


> 
> - file(1) is both referred as command and program, I always thought it is a
> command.

It is a command that is, like the vast majority of UNIX shell commands, implemented by a program (which is usually stored in /usr/bin).
But we can be consistent here (always calling it a command).

> - Section 3.2: I didn't get the proper motivation for this section in this
> document. There were no mention of other CBOR data items and certainly they
> become the center piece in this section. I think it would be great to add some
> text about the motivation.

See Michael’s response.
In UNIX, many file formats can be concatenated by “cat”, so the resulting occurrence of mid-sequence labels is not an unusual consideration.

> - Speaking very frankly I feel like section 3.1 and section 3.2 are not the
> center part of this specification and should be moved to appendix section.

(See Michael’s response.)

Grüße, Carsten