Re: [Cbor] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cbor-array-tags-07

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 25 September 2019 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55F07120941; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 07:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7DuIJu8C9Bsu; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 07:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7E7B1208F2; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 07:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.110] (p548DCE50.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.206.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46dh1T74zpzyXq; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 16:55:09 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <156779841919.21968.7839958128124169842@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 16:55:09 +0200
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cbor-array-tags.all@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 591116104.305389-75fc960471518419bb3e157c2a705735
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2090EB76-F175-4735-A29A-C7A4ED97A8E8@tzi.org>
References: <156779841919.21968.7839958128124169842@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/gNNnhQw-PeMgK7_N73d-SwJMeJE>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cbor-array-tags-07
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:55:15 -0000

Hi Elwyn,

thank you for these comments.
These are now addressed in the editor’s copy on github, specifically in
https://github.com/cbor-wg/array-tags/commit/f63c0301c481ab773c16b96a9b0eb63456554049
Details below.

> On Sep 6, 2019, at 21:33, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-cbor-array-tags-07
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review Date: 2019-09-06
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-09-05
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> Ready with a couple of nits.  Apologies for slightly late delivery.
> 
> Major issues:
> None
> 
> Minor issues:
> None
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> s1, para 2: s/have received/has received/
> 
> s1, para 3: s/This also can/This can also/
> 
> s1.1, last para: s/whether that/as to whether that/

I put these in (oops, missed one, now in https://github.com/cbor-wg/array-tags/commit/4490e8b6f9f157779783f645c2c4ee6f9e749f74 ).

> 
> s2.1, 2nd para after Table 2 (top of page 5):
> OLD:
>      It can be computed
>      inversely to the previous formula from the length of the byte string
>      in bytes: "bytelength >> (f + ll)".
> NEW:
>      It can be computed from the length of the byte string comprising the
>      representation of the array by inverting the previous formula: "bytelength
>>> (f + ll)".
> ENDS

This misses the “in bytes”, which may be obvious to many, but should be said.
Now:

It can be
computed from the length, in bytes, of the byte string comprising the
representation of the array by inverting the previous formula:
`bytelength >> (f + ll)`.

> s2.1: The terms endianness, big endian and litle endian are jargon, if pretty
> well known jargon, but I don't know if they are considered to be adequately
> well understood to avoid the need for a reference or  an explanation of what is
> meant.

Very good point; we sometimes get too mired in our jargon.

Now at the end of the terminology section:

The terms "big endian" and "little endian" are used to indicate a most
significant byte first (MSB first) representation of integers, and a
least significant byte first (LSB first) representation, respectively.

I think we can tolerate the one occurrence of “endianness” before that, as that is just in a list of examples.

Grüße, Carsten