Dear Authors/Chairs/ADs, Following up on this; please see below for comments from the expert.
-- I believe the draft would need a few updates to clarify the new media type and the precise request. * application/coap-eap is registered but never used (i.e. referred to by name) from any other section. * I couldn't find an explicit format/syntax definition for this new media type. * Is it equal to the CBOR data format defined in Section 4? If so, then section 4 should mention at least the name of the new media type and section 8.5 ideally should give a quick pointer to section 4 for the format definition. * the text in 8.6 should better refer to Section 12.3 of [RFC 7252] for the registry; link to [RFC 6690] is not so useful here. The text says "Expert Review" but that's only for the 0-255 range. For this range some additional motivation is required why it needs to be there, and this is missing. For the 256-9999 range the procedure is "IETF review" -> did you mean to select this range? It would be ok to continue the registration with the current draft, if the authors want to make text clarifications later on and not now. A number in the 256-9999 is for sure ok (if that's intended), for example 260, but for 0-255 range some reason/rationale needs to be provided. -- Best regards, David Dong IANA Services Sr. Specialist On Fri Jan 12 17:27:37 2024, david.dong wrote: > Dear Authors/Chairs/ADs, > > Please see below for comments from the expert. > > -- > > I believe the draft would need a few updates to clarify the new media > type and the precise request. > > * application/coap-eap is registered but never used (i.e. referred to > by name) from any other section. > * I couldn't find an explicit format/syntax definition for this new > media type. > * Is it equal to the CBOR data format defined in Section 4? If so, > then section 4 should mention at least the name of the new media type > and section 8.5 ideally should give a quick pointer to section 4 for > the format definition. > * the text in 8.6 should better refer to Section 12.3 of [RFC 7252] > for the registry; link to [RFC 6690] is not so useful here. > The text says "Expert Review" but that's only for the 0-255 range. For > this range some additional motivation is required why it needs to be > there, and this is missing. > For the 256-9999 range the procedure is "IETF review" -> did you mean > to select this range? > > It would be ok to continue the registration with the current draft, if > the authors want to make text clarifications later on and not now. > A number in the 256-9999 is for sure ok (if that's intended), for > example 260, but for 0-255 range some reason/rationale needs to be > provided. > > -- > > Best regards, > > David Dong > IANA Services Sr. Specialist > > On Fri Jan 12 09:55:37 2024, esko.d...@iotconsultancy.nl wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I believe the draft would need a few updates to clarify the new media > > type and the precise request. > > > > * application/coap-eap is registered but never used (i.e. referred to > > by name) from any other section. > > * I couldn't find an explicit format/syntax definition for this new > > media type. > > * Is it equal to the CBOR data format defined in Section 4? If so, > > then section 4 should mention at least the name of the new media type > > and section 8.5 ideally should give a quick pointer to section 4 for > > the format definition. > > * the text in 8.6 should better refer to Section 12.3 of [RFC 7252] > > for the registry; link to [RFC 6690] is not so useful here. > > The text says "Expert Review" but that's only for the 0-255 range. > > For this range some additional motivation is required why it needs to > > be there, and this is missing. > > For the 256-9999 range the procedure is "IETF review" -> did you > > mean to select this range? > > > > It would be ok to continue the registration with the current draft, > > if > > the authors want to make text clarifications later on and not now. > > A number in the 256-9999 is for sure ok (if that's intended), for > > example 260, but for 0-255 range some reason/rationale needs to be > > provided. > > > > Regards > > Esko > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Dong via RT <drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org> > > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 02:10 > > Cc: Esko Dijk <esko.d...@iotconsultancy.nl>; har...@projectcool.de; > > c...@tzi.org; ja...@iki.fi; jaime.jime...@ericsson.com; > > alexan...@ackl.io; ace@ietf.org > > Subject: [IANA #1303039] expert review for draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap > > (core-parameters, CoAP Content-Formats) > > > > Dear Esko Dijk (cc: ace WG), > > > > As the designated expert for the CoAP Content-Formats registry, can > > you review the proposed registration in draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-09 > > for us? Please see: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap/ > > > > The due date is January 25. > > > > If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication, > > we'll make the registration at: > > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/ > > > > With thanks, > > > > David Dong > > IANA Services Sr. Specialist _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
