Subject: [apps-discuss] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown-use-cases-02: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 12:23:28 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown-use-cases-02: 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-appsawg-text-markdown-use-cases/

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

Like others have commented, I find it a bit odd to mix the IANA
registrations with the rest of the material in this draft.

Some of the editorial comments (from myself below, from others, and from
IDNits) makes me wonder if this draft was quite finished?

While I don't think it makes sense to change course this late in the
process for this draft, I am skeptical that the material in sections 1
and 2 will benefit from being in an RFC.  I think that it might have made
more sense to capture it in a working group wiki, or similar repository.
(But again, no point in changing now.)

-- 3.3, additional parameters:
I’m not sure I understand why the list is broken in to “stuff to turn
off” and “new stuff”.

Editorial:

IDNits has quite a bit to say, some of which might even be relevant.
Please check.

There are a number of words enclosed in /slashes/ or *asterisks*. I
assume this is intended for emphasis. (Or perhaps as performance art when
discussing methods for formatting text :-)  ) But it seems odd for an
RFC. If it stays, I suggest picking one method and sticking with it. (If
it means something different, please mention that in the text.)

-- section 4 refers to Appendix C, but the draft has no appendices.

---

From: Sean Leonard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:41:14 -0700

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown-use-cases/

I suppose that is an inelegant way of saying:

{{
Extensions to turn off (on by default):

Extensions to turn on (off by default):
}}

That verbiage corresponds with the text that precedes it:
“+" preceding an extension token turns the extension on; "-" turns the extension off.

> IDNits has quite a bit to say, some of which might even be relevant.

OK.

> it means something different, please mention that in the text.)

See prior comment about text-markdown. I can remove these slashes and asterisks.

> -- section 4 refers to Appendix C, but the draft has no appendices.

Section 4, change text to:

This section provides examples of the variants in Section 3.

Sean