Subject: Re: [mile] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-mile-jsoniodef-13: (with COMMENT)

From: "Takeshi Takahashi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2020 20:13:20 -0800

Hello Benjamin,

We appreciate your kind feedbacks very much.
We believe your comments are very correct; so we have modified the draft
accordingly.

Thank you very much, and best regards,
Take

-----Original Message-----
From: mile <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Benjamin Kaduk via
Datatracker
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 1:00 PM
To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [mile] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on
draft-ietf-mile-jsoniodef-13: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mile-jsoniodef-13: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-jsoniodef/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the updates in the -13; they are a good improvement!

I did notice a couple things while reviewing the diff from -12 to -13 that
I'll mention here, in case there might be any further tweaks to make.

In Figure 7 it looks like the encoded text includes an embedded CR+LF.
I don't think this is forbidden by anything, but is perhaps superfluous.

Thanks for the table of CBOR map keys in Section 5.  I note that slightly
shorter encodings might be possible by using negative integers as well as
positive ones, with "steps" for the encoding size occurring at 24, 256,
etc., and -25, -257, etc.

[I did not check the examples for correct use of the CBOR map key values, on
the assumption that they were mechanically generated.]

The definition of StructuredInfo underwent a change that was not quite
mechanical:
"(RawData: [+ BYTE] // Reference:[+ Reference])" became "(iodef-RawData =>
[+ BYTE], iodef-Reference => [+ Reference])" (dropping the grouping choice
operator "//").  I don't remember if there was a reason to make this change,
so I mention it in case it was not deliberate.

_______________________________________________
mile mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile