[T2TRG] draft-hartke-t2trg-ciri-00 review

[Ari Keränen <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I reviewed the CIRI -00 draft. Overall it looked very good to me but 
here's a few comments/questions.


2.1.  Options

    host.ip
      Specifies the host of the IRI authority as an IPv4 address
      (4 bytes) or an IPv6 address (16 bytes).

Do we need endianess considerations here? Or does CBOR take care of that?


2.2.  Option Sequences

     A sequence of options is considered _well-formed_ if:

Do we need the _emphasis_ here? Maybe in quotes since it's a defined 
term? Unless we want to follow the CDDL convention -- which perhaps 
makes sense. But then it's probably good to have a note along the lines 
of "New terms are introduced in _cursive_." in the terminology section.


     o  a "host.ip" option is followed by a "port" option;

Why is the port option mandatory? No default ports allowed?


3.  CBOR

       ciri = [?(scheme:    1, text),
               ?(host.name: 2, text //
                 host.ip:   3, bytes .size 4 / bytes .size 16),
               ?(port:      4, uint .size 2),
               ?(path.type: 5, path-type),
               *(path:      6, text),
               *(query:     7, text),
               ?(fragment:  8, text)]>

Isn't "text" too permissive type for most (all?) of the components?


Cheers,
Ari