[Cellar] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-cellar-matroska-19: (with COMMENT)

[John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cellar-matroska-19: 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.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cellar-matroska/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your work on this document, and I apologize for the length of time
it's taken me to review the changes. I have a couple of final comments.

1. Thanks for the "Updates to RFC 8794" section! I think you also should add
the "Updates" header. I expect this was just an oversight since you've gotten
the rest of the formalities right including mentioning the update in the
abstract.

2. I notice you haven't changed the language of the form "are set to 00". I
think you asked me about this in an email reply a long time ago and I dropped
the ball. Indeed, my suggestion was to use "0b00" instead of "00" (and similar,
wherever you are writing out binary, whatever the specific values). That is, I
think you should do as other RFCs do and follow the usual C syntax for number
representation. As you've written it, with a leading zero and no base
indicator, the casual reader might suppose you were using octal, same for "set
to 01". Similarly, "are set to 11" looks to my eye as if it meant "are set to
(decimal) eleven". Of course, with just a tiny bit of effort, your true meaning
can be inferred from "the bits 5-6..." but why not specify the radix?