Re: [dispatch] Yet Another Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-04

["Matthew A. Miller" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the latest review, Ben.  We should be able to have the
editorial changes done very soon, but the substantive comments will take
longer.  I cannot provide a time frame right now, but should be able to
update by next week.

More specific comments inline:

On 19/09/17 15:50, Ben Campbell wrote:
> 
> *** Material Comments/Questions *** 
> 
> 1) There was at least one WGLC comment that this should obsolete RFC
> 4329 rather than update it. I recall a comment from Matt that seemed to
> be agreement with that change. Was there a specific decision not to make
> the change?
> 

I cannot find my original message, but I think was (probably
unnecessarily) more nuanced than that: I could see how that is valid,
and asked if doing so would require porting all the maintained content
from RFC 4329 into this document.

I admittedly went the route of leaving it alone since I don't recall
seeing any response to my question, and porting seemed like a
significant amount of work.

If changing from "Updates" to "Obsoletes" is enough, I can do that
fairly quickly.  If porting the content is needed, that will take me
much longer, but will do that if that's the consensus.

> 2) The document lacks a Security Considerations section. It may be that
> there are no new security considerations beyond those in 4329, but if
> that is the case this document needs to explicitly say (and justify)
> that.  But please consider whether it is realistic to say we’ve learned
> nothing new about the security considerations since 4329 was published
> 13 years ago. (We can expect statements to that effect to get close
> scrutiny from the secdir reviewer and security ADs.)
> 

Reading RFC 4329's existing considerations again, I think they are still
the most relevant, as surprising as that seems.

I'll consult with some of my colleagues to get their input before
submitting an update.

> *** Editorial Comments ***
> 
> §2:
> - First paragraph:
> — Missing comma after “modular programs” in the first sentence.

Changing in my local copy.

> — Consider s/ “now defines “ / “defines “  ( time-specific language
> becomes dated pretty quickly)

I suggest "(starting with 6th Edition) defines "; modules were first
introduced in ES6, so there is some version sensitivity here.

> — Consider a brief (no more than one sentence) explanation of the
> term “goal symbols”
> 
> - 2nd paragraph: This is the first mention of “Module or “Script”
> grammar goals. A very brief explanation of those terms would be helpful.
> 

Will do both in my working copy.

> §3, 2nd paragraph: 
> -  Inconsistent tense.
> -  consider s/“… specification is using ....”/“… specification uses ...."
> 
> 

Changing both in my working copy.


Thank you again, Ben!

- m&m

Matthew A. Miller
< http://goo.gl/LM55L >