Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-06

[Ines Robles <[e-mail]>]

Thank you very much Carsten for addressing my comments

Liebe Grüße,

Ines

On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 7:59 PM Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ines,
>
> thank you for these comments!
>
> Good catch with the 0b010_01001!
> I should know better (made the same kind of mistake in RFC 7049).
>
> I actually kept in a second expansion of SDNV in Section 2; possibly the
> RFC editor will strike that, but I find it useful.
>
> All the below are now in
> https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-oid/commit/9c90d8d
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>
> > On 2021-04-06, at 18:21, Ines Robles via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Reviewer: Ines Robles
> > Review result: Ready with Nits
> >
> > Summary:
> >
> > The document defines CBOR tags for object identifiers (OIDs).  The
> document is
> > well written.
> >
> > Few minor questions/comments.
> >
> > Major Issues: None
> >
> > Minor Issues: None
> >
> > Nits:
> >
> > - It would be nice to expand SDNV in section 1.1 instead of Section 2.
> >
> > - Section 3.2 - Figure 4-MIB relative object identifier in CBOR:
> >
> > 0b010_01001 should be 0b010_00011 ? for major type 2, additional
> information 3
> > bytes
> >
> > - Section 7.1:
> >
> > -- In order to mention the registry, maybe smth like
> >
> >  to assign the CBOR tags --> to assign in the CBOR tags registry the
> following
> >  tags....
> >
> > -- It would be nice to have the table with the same structure as the
> registry
> > table (add reference column like in Section 7.2), I think template
> column does
> > not apply here.
> >
> > - Section 7.2:
> >
> > -- In order to mention the registry, maybe smth similar as Section 7.1?
> >
> > Thank you for this document,
> >
> > Ines.
> >
> >
>
>