Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-gellens-mime-bucket-bis-03

From: David Singer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:29:24 -0700

should I upload a new version?  I have not heard anything in a while.  what happens next?

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 22:14:46 -0700

> while.  what happens next?

Please do upload a revision (-04) and let the Area Director know. 
The draft is not yet in IETF Last Call, so there are no "Discuss"es 
which need to be formally cleared.  There was a review by the Apps 
directorate, which provided some helpful comments that we addressed.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Little Jack Horner
Sits in a corner
Extracting cube roots to infinity.
An assignment for boys
That will minimize noise
And produce a more peaceful vicinity.
      --Frederick Winsor, "A Space-Child's Mother Goose"

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 22:51:55 -0700

Hi David,
At 17:47 21-04-2011, David Singer wrote:
>I put back the "Note that"

Thanks.  The changes you did addresses all the comments.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: David Singer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 16:47:39 -0700

On May 11, 2011, at 22:14 , Randall Gellens wrote:

> Please do upload a revision (-04) and let the Area Director know. The draft is not yet in IETF Last Call, so there are no "Discuss"es which need to be formally cleared.  There was a review by the Apps directorate, which provided some helpful comments that we addressed.

-04 uploaded.  what's next?

David Singer

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 16:56:34 -0500

> -04 uploaded. what's next?

Almost time for me to Last Call the document. A few things:

I found one nit in -04 
<http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gellens-mime-bucket-bis-04.txt>:

   == Missing Reference: '13k' is mentioned on line 148, but not defined

I see that you used regular BNF and not ABNF. That's OK, but I would 
appreciate you (a) using a tool to syntax check the BNF and (b) pointing 
me to the output of that tool. My BNF is OK, but not great.

I will do a review of the document before sending it for Last Call, but 
I would appreciate if one of you could start writing up the announcement 
text. As it says in RFC 4858:

           The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
           Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
           Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in the
           "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
           announcement contains the following sections:

           Technical Summary
              Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
              and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
              an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
              or introduction.

           Working Group Summary
              Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
              For example, was there controversy about particular points
              or were there decisions where the consensus was
              particularly rough?

           Document Quality
              Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
              significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
              implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
              merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
              e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
              conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
              there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
              what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
              Review, on what date was the request posted?

           Personnel
              Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
              Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
              experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
              in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 17:00:32 -0500

> Almost time for me to Last Call the document. A few things:

Sorry, that was meant for the authors. Apps-discuss may ignore.

pr

---

From: David Singer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 16:40:12 -0700

Pete

the [13k] was an editing error, should have been an RFC reference, I didn't catch it when fixing up after rfc2xml.  Thanks for catching it.

I can't find a perfect checker online, but Bill's ABNF checker <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/bap/abnf.cgi> says, after changing := to =

-  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ -  +|+ 

Bill's ABNF Parser

No errors during parsing.

so I *think* we're OK

On May 17, 2011, at 14:56 , Pete Resnick wrote:

> I found one nit in -04 <http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gellens-mime-bucket-bis-04.txt>:
> 
> I see that you used regular BNF and not ABNF. That's OK, but I would appreciate you (a) using a tool to syntax check the BNF and (b) pointing me to the output of that tool. My BNF is OK, but not great.
> 
> I will do a review of the document before sending it for Last Call, but I would appreciate if one of you could start writing up the announcement text. As it says in RFC 4858:
> 
> 

I think the document abstract should meet this need.

>             or were there decisions where the consensus was

It's worth noting that it was uncontroversial enough to elicit very few comments.

>             Review, on what date was the request posted?

The codecs parameter is getting increasingly popular, and the MPEG/3G DASH specifications would like to have a stable reference for the 'profiles' parameter.

David Singer