Re: [media-types] AD review of draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-09

[Mathias Bynens <[e-mail]>]

Hi Francesca,

We’ve worked through your feedback (*italic* below). Here are our responses
(*bold*):

## Main

1. ----

FP: This document is presented in the Abstract, Introduction and
Compatibility section as aiming to update some IANA registrations for the
media types mentioned, as well as documenting current usage of these media
types. Because of that, I am not convinced about the use of BCP 14
language: if the intent is documenting current practices, most of these BCP
14 terms should be replaced by explanations on how implementations behave.
To give an example of my concern, for the following paragraph in Section 4:

   Implementations that support binary source text MUST support binary

   source text encoded using the UTF-8 [RFC3629] character encoding

   scheme.  Module goal sources MUST be encoded as UTF-8, all other

   encodings will fail.  Source goal sources SHOULD be encoded as UTF-8;

   other character encoding schemes MAY be supported, but are

   discouraged.

FP: Are these requirements that should have been there in RFC 4329 and are
being added now? Are these how most implementations already behave? Would
it not make more sense to reformulate this paragraph to describe
implementations behaviour, rather than mandate and recommend? Why using BCP
14 terms?

This comment applies to all new occurrences of BCP 14 terms (it does not to
apply to sections taken from RFC 4329, such as the first paragraph of
section 4.1).

We believe this has already been addressed by the shepherd earlier in the
thread.

2. ----

FP: Maybe more of a question: why is the "Encoding considerations" field in
all subsections of section 6.1 "binary"? RFC 4329 did have more text about
the encoding, is that obsoleted? Did I miss in which part of the draft this
is discussed?

This was done in response to Media-Type Early Review comments:
https://github.com/linuxwolf/bmeck-ids/pull/25

3. ----

FP: "Published specification" field of each subsection of section 6.1 is
"this document". I don't believe that is correct, and it should instead
point to the correct specification (so JS 1.5, ECMAScript etc).

This was done in response to Media-Type Early Review comments:
https://github.com/linuxwolf/bmeck-ids/pull/25

4. ----

FP: I would also add RFC 4329 authors as "Person & email address to
contact", as well as "Author" for those media types that 4329 registered.
Please let me know if this is not common practice, but it seems logical to
me to have both you authors and previous authors.

This does not appear to be common practice. E.g. RFC 54 (by Crocker,
Postel, Newkirk, Kraley) was superseded by RFC 57 (by Kraley & Newkirk).
We’d prefer proceeding in line with this precedent, given that including
the original authors complicates the process further (since it would
require their explicit approval of all our changes before moving forward).

5. ----

FP: I believe it would make sense to modify the IANA media type registry to
add an "OBSOLETED in favor of ..." note in the name column of all those
media types obsoleted. I think this requires a new IANA section.

I think this refers to the document at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml, and not our
draft. Am I misunderstanding? What changes would this require to our draft?

6. ----

FP: There are 4 occurrences of media types where Intended usage is
OBSOLETE, but the Restriction on usage does not have the same sentence as
all the other obsolete ones:

  This media type is obsolete; current

      implementations should use text/javascript as the only JavaScript/

      ECMAScript media type.

I think this is an overlook, is that correct?

Good catch! Patch: https://github.com/linuxwolf/bmeck-ids/pull/36/files

## Minor

7. -----

FP: Please consider adding some text in the introduction mentioning that
this document expands on the security considerations. I appreciate this
work on the Security Considerations section was done, and believe the BCP
14 terms make sense there. It should just be highlighted better in the
introductory part of the document.

Patch: https://github.com/linuxwolf/bmeck-ids/pull/42 (still under review)

8. -----

FP: I am not sure RFC3986 and RFC3987 need to be a normative reference,
given the only place they appear is a paragraph stating how this document
does not define processing of fragment identifiers.

Fixed: https://github.com/linuxwolf/bmeck-ids/pull/40
<https://github.com/linuxwolf/bmeck-ids/pull/40/files>

9. -----

FP: I'd suggest adding section numbers when referring to [ECMA-262]
sections, instead of just names.

The ECMAScript specification is a “living standard”, and the section
numbers change frequently as new chapters are introduced or sections are
moved around. Using the section names is a more stable, future-proof way to
refer to specific parts of the spec. Given that, would you be okay with
keeping this as-is?

Alternatively, we could add links to the specific sections in the latest
draft spec, e.g. https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-source-text — these URLs are
stable, too, but I don’t think there is precedent for this in any existing
RFC.

10. -----

   javascript.  Differences in ECMAScript versions have been better

   dealt with in the processors.

FP: "in the processors" - I am not sure what is meant here, might be worth
considering rephrasing for clarity.

I think we can just remove this sentence. Patch:
https://github.com/linuxwolf/bmeck-ids/pull/37/files

11. -----

   Refer to [RFC6265] for a discussion of terminology used in this

   section.  Source text (as defined in [ECMA-262], section "Source

FP: I am confused by what part of 6265 is relevant regarding terminology
used in this section. Maybe adding a section pointer would help.

This was a typo, introduced while bringing over text from RFC 4329 and
updating then-obsoleted references. It should be 6365 (Terminology Used in
Internationalization in the IETF), which obsoleted 3536 (Terminology Used
in Internationalization in the IETF), which is what 4329 (the document
we’re obsoleting) referred to. Patch:
https://github.com/linuxwolf/bmeck-ids/pull/43

12. -----

   separately for purposes of external storage and retrieval.  An

   implementation's internal representation of source text and source

   text are not considered binary source text.

FP: I have a hard time parsing "and source text", in the context of the
sentence. What's the difference with "an implementation's internal
representation of source text"? (this might be me not understanding the
phrasing)

This was a typo. Patch: https://github.com/linuxwolf/bmeck-ids/pull/41/files

13. -----

FP: Section 6 - IANA Considerations: please consider adding a link to the
media type registry.

In search of an example, I looked at recent media type RFCs (e.g. RFC8878,
RFC8478, RFC8351), and none of them seem to do this. I’ve suggested a
change: https://github.com/linuxwolf/bmeck-ids/pull/39/files but please let
me know if you had something else in mind.

## Nit

14. ----

   of additional scripts, called importing.  Implementations that

   support modules need to process imported sources in the same way

   scripts.  Further, there may be additional privacy and security

FP: "in the same way script" - is it missing an "as"?

Fixed: https://github.com/linuxwolf/bmeck-ids/pull/34/files

Once the remaining questions are addressed, we’ll be happy to cut a new
(final?) version of the doc.

Thanks,
Mathias Bynens on behalf of the draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs authors

On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 4:39 PM Mathias Bynens <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thank you Francesca for your thorough AD review! We (the authors) are
> currently working on addressing your comments. I’ll reply to this thread
> once we have an answer for all of the points you’ve raised.
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 5:49 PM Francesca Palombini <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the work on this document. This is my AD review.
>>
>> I have divided comments into "main", "minor" and "nits". I'd like to have
>> a discussion on my main comments before requesting the IETF Last Call. On
>> the other hand, you can address the minors and nits together with any
>> additional Last Call comments you will get. As I am coming in late to the
>> process, please understand that I don't mean to re-hash existing
>> discussions that I am not aware of, and I appreciate your patience: feel
>> free to point me to previous discussion (and conclusions) I might have
>> missed, if relevant.
>>
>> For the minor comments - some of these are suggestions or questions which
>> I hope will help improve readability, which you can decide to take or leave
>> as you please.
>>
>> Francesca
>>
>> ## Main
>>
>> 1. ----
>>
>> FP: This document is presented in the Abstract, Introduction and
>> Compatibility section as aiming to update some IANA registrations for the
>> media types mentioned, as well as documenting current usage of these media
>> types. Because of that, I am not convinced about the use of BCP 14
>> language: if the intent is documenting current practices, most of these BCP
>> 14 terms should be replaced by explanations on how implementations behave.
>> To give an example of my concern, for the following paragraph in Section 4:
>>
>>    Implementations that support binary source text MUST support binary
>>    source text encoded using the UTF-8 [RFC3629] character encoding
>>    scheme.  Module goal sources MUST be encoded as UTF-8, all other
>>    encodings will fail.  Source goal sources SHOULD be encoded as UTF-8;
>>    other character encoding schemes MAY be supported, but are
>>    discouraged.
>>
>> FP: Are these requirements that should have been there in RFC 4329 and
>> are being added now? Are these how most implementations already behave?
>> Would it not make more sense to reformulate this paragraph to describe
>> implementations behaviour, rather than mandate and recommend? Why using BCP
>> 14 terms?
>> This comment applies to all new occurrences of BCP 14 terms (it does not
>> to apply to sections taken from RFC 4329, such as the first paragraph of
>> section 4.1).
>>
>> 2. ----
>>
>> FP: Maybe more of a question: why is the "Encoding considerations" field
>> in all subsections of section 6.1 "binary"? RFC 4329 did have more text
>> about the encoding, is that obsoleted? Did I miss in which part of the
>> draft this is discussed?
>>
>> 3. ----
>>
>> FP: "Published specification" field of each subsection of section 6.1 is
>> "this document". I don't believe that is correct, and it should instead
>> point to the correct specification (so JS 1.5, ECMAScript etc).
>>
>> 4. ----
>>
>> FP: I would also add RFC 4329 authors as "Person & email address to
>> contact", as well as "Author" for those media types that 4329 registered.
>> Please let me know if this is not common practice, but it seems logical to
>> me to have both you authors and previous authors.
>>
>> 5. ----
>>
>> FP: I believe it would make sense to modify the IANA media type registry
>> to add an "OBSOLETED in favor of ..." note in the name column of all those
>> media types obsoleted. I think this requires a new IANA section.
>>
>> 6. ----
>>
>> FP: There are 4 occurrences of media types where Intended usage is
>> OBSOLETE, but the Restriction on usage does not have the same sentence as
>> all the other obsolete ones:
>>
>>   This media type is obsolete; current
>>       implementations should use text/javascript as the only JavaScript/
>>       ECMAScript media type.
>>
>> I think this is an overlook, is that correct?
>>
>> ## Minor
>>
>> 7. -----
>>
>> FP: Please consider adding some text in the introduction mentioning that
>> this document expands on the security considerations. I appreciate this
>> work on the Security Considerations section was done, and believe the BCP
>> 14 terms make sense there. It should just be highlighted better in the
>> introductory part of the document.
>>
>> 8. -----
>>
>> FP: I am not sure RFC3986 and RFC3987 need to be a normative reference,
>> given the only place they appear is a paragraph stating how this document
>> does not define processing of fragment identifiers.
>>
>> 9. -----
>>
>> FP: I'd suggest adding section numbers when referring to [ECMA-262]
>> sections, instead of just names.
>>
>> 10. -----
>>
>>    javascript.  Differences in ECMAScript versions have been better
>>    dealt with in the processors.
>>
>> FP: "in the processors" - I am not sure what is meant here, might be
>> worth considering rephrasing for clarity.
>>
>> 11. -----
>>
>>    Refer to [RFC6265] for a discussion of terminology used in this
>>    section.  Source text (as defined in [ECMA-262], section "Source
>>
>> FP: I am confused by what part of 6265 is relevant regarding terminology
>> used in this section. Maybe adding a section pointer would help.
>>
>> 12. -----
>>
>>    separately for purposes of external storage and retrieval.  An
>>    implementation's internal representation of source text and source
>>    text are not considered binary source text.
>>
>> FP: I have a hard time parsing "and source text", in the context of the
>> sentence. What's the difference with "an implementation's internal
>> representation of source text"? (this might be me not understanding the
>> phrasing)
>>
>> 13. -----
>>
>> FP: Section 6 - IANA Considerations: please consider adding a link to the
>> media type registry.
>>
>> ## Nit
>>
>> 14. ----
>>
>>    of additional scripts, called importing.  Implementations that
>>    support modules need to process imported sources in the same way
>>    scripts.  Further, there may be additional privacy and security
>>
>> FP: "in the same way script" - is it missing an "as"?
>>
>>
>>