Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-06

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,
Thank you for your review.

On 16/10/2012 22:48, Martin Thomson wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-06
> Reviewer: Martin Thomson
> Review Date: 2012-10-16
> IETF LC End Date: 2012-10-19
> IESG Telechat date: 2012-10-25
>
> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a (?) RFC.
>
> Minor issues: Is BCP status really appropriate?  Informational seems
> more appropriate for this sort of document.  The choice of providing a
> modicum of guidance in Section 2, as opposed to in the RFC that
> establishes the registry, could suggest this status, but that seems a
> bit weak as motivation.
This is a Normative reference for a BCP. It was split off from it.

I agree the registrations themselves can be Informational.
> Nits:
>
> +der doesn't even make a passing reference to +ber.  That's odd, since
> one describes a subset of the other.
It might be worth adding a sentence on this.
> Mention of schema for +der and +ber doesn't seem relevant to the key
> security consideration: that structures can be nested indefinitely.
> This is possible regardless of what the schema says - a generic
> processor is more likely to fall victim in that regard.
This is not really different from arbitrary nesting in, for example, 
XML. But I suppose this can be pointed out explicitly.