Re: [Cbor] [core] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-core-problem-details

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

> Procedural notes:
> 
> * I'm not sure RFC 7252 is a normative reference here; it's the typical
>  transport, but understanding it is not necessary for implementing this
>  spec. It might be justified by the response code reference, but the
>  note on its numeric form IMO suffices to make this document usable
>  without depending on 7252.

Those who want to implement response-code without ever having heard of CoAP will need to look it up, so to me this is an unavoidable normative reference.
(It is also rather innocuous, as RFC 7252 is already published.)

That is of course a general problem with normative references; any optional feature that draws in a normative reference creates a tail.
“Optional normative reference” would be a good new category.

> Editorial notes:
> 
> * Figure 1: The figure does not show the details (of a high-level class
>  and finer-grained details) the paragraph referring to it describes;
>  rather than "vocabulary), as shown in Figure 1." could say
>  "vocabulary). The pattern of communication is shown in Figure 1".

Now in
https://github.com/core-wg/core-problem-details/pull/18/commits/1c130e3

>  Nice vector graphics, by the way :-)
> 
> * The Tag 38 appendix talks about Unicode language tags being
>  deprecated; a similar point might be made about Unicode bidirectional
>  markers (U+200E and U+200F); https://www.w3.org/TR/string-meta/#rlm
>  could work as a reference (albeit with some careful wording, given
>  it's only a draft).

Not sure I'd want to pull in the entirety of https://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-bidi-unicode-controls.en#basedirection

We could reference https://www.w3.org/TR/string-meta/ informatively, pointing out that this is an active area of investigation (née “for further study”).

Proposal for that now in
https://github.com/core-wg/core-problem-details/pull/18/commits/3b4ba14

Grüße, Carsten