[Cellar] EBML nits

[Tessa Fallon <[e-mail]>]

Generated by running nits from:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cellar-ebml/

idnits 2.14.02

/tmp/draft-ietf-cellar-ebml-02.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.  (See Section
     2.2 of http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case
     when there are no actions for IANA.)

  ** There are 18 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
     one being 113 characters in excess of 72.


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (February 26, 2017) is 101 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'EBMLParentPath' is mentioned on line 836, but not
     defined

  == Missing Reference: 'EBMLMinOccurrence' is mentioned on line 847, but not
     defined

  == Missing Reference: 'EBMLMaxOccurrence' is mentioned on line 847, but not
     defined

  == Missing Reference: 'PathMinOccurrence' is mentioned on line 850, but not
     defined

  == Missing Reference: 'PathMaxOccurrence' is mentioned on line 850, but not
     defined

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IEEE.754.1985'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ITU.V42.1994'

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2279 (Obsoleted by RFC 3629)


     Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).