[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

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
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)

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