[Cbor] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on charter-ietf-cbor-01-01: (with COMMENT)
Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 26 June 2019 15:03 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietf.org
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797111202AD; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 08:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: cbor-chairs@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.98.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <156156141243.20102.16028455341094597596.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 08:03:32 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/zvJHyR12revJjCjRyWHD9HMVfNc>
Subject: [Cbor] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on charter-ietf-cbor-01-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 26 Jun 2019 15:03:33 -0000
Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-cbor-01-01: No Objection 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.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cbor/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello, I have few comments: * why only mention verified errata? what about "held for document update" type of errata? I also note there are 4 Reported errata. A more general sentence could be: "The CBOR working group will update RFC 7049 based on existing errata." * I find "popular" a bit subjective. Is that really needed? * s/a Full Internet Standard/an Internet Standard/ Thank you -m
- [Cbor] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on charter… Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker