Hi Martin,
Thank you for your review.
On 16/10/2012 22:48, Martin Thomson wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
< http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-06
Reviewer: Martin Thomson
Review Date: 2012-10-16
IETF LC End Date: 2012-10-19
IESG Telechat date: 2012-10-25
Summary: This document is ready for publication as a (?) RFC.
Minor issues: Is BCP status really appropriate? Informational seems
more appropriate for this sort of document. The choice of providing a
modicum of guidance in Section 2, as opposed to in the RFC that
establishes the registry, could suggest this status, but that seems a
bit weak as motivation.
This is a Normative reference for a BCP. It was split off from it.
I agree the registrations themselves can be Informational.
Nits:
+der doesn't even make a passing reference to +ber. That's odd, since
one describes a subset of the other.
It might be worth adding a sentence on this.
Mention of schema for +der and +ber doesn't seem relevant to the key
security consideration: that structures can be nested indefinitely.
This is possible regardless of what the schema says - a generic
processor is more likely to fall victim in that regard.
This is not really different from arbitrary nesting in, for example,
XML. But I suppose this can be pointed out explicitly.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
