Subject: [core] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-multipart-ct-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 06:47:18 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-core-multipart-ct-03: 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-core-multipart-ct/

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

A few minor nits/points:

(1) Section 1.  Grammar Nit.

s/This specification allows to indicate that/
This specification allows one to indication that/

(2) Section 1.  Per “A third situation that is common only ever has a single
representation in the sequence, which is one of a set of formats possible”, it
isn’t clear to me what the dependent clause, “which is one of the a set of
formats”, is suggesting.  If there is only a single representation, how is
there a “union of formats” as suggested by the follow-on sentence?

(3) Section 2.  The provided example of two representations is helpful.  It
would be useful to carry this example through and use it again in
Implementation Hints section.

(4) Section 2.  Per “(This generally means the representation is not processes
at all except if some stream processing has already happened.)”, the target of
this observation isn’t clear to me – perhaps the third clause from the previous
sentence about left over data?

(5) Section 4.  Nits.  Make the section title case, like the other sections.

s/Implementation hints/Implementation Hints/

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 21:07:13 +0200

Hi Roman,

thank you for your comments.

We are working on addressing the IETF LC comments in the branch ietf-lc-fixes on https://github.com/core-wg/multipart-ct, the current state of which can we viewed at:

https://core-wg.github.io/multipart-ct/ietf-lc-fixes/draft-ietf-core-multipart-ct.html

and

https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://core-wg.github.io/multipart-ct/draft-ietf-core-multipart-ct.txt&url2=https://core-wg.github.io/multipart-ct/ietf-lc-fixes/draft-ietf-core-multipart-ct.txt

Detailed responses below.

Grüße, Carsten

> On Apr 24, 2019, at 15:47, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Barry Leiba already proposed a fix for this that we like, see branch linked above.

> there a “union of formats” as suggested by the follow-on sentence?

New text that is maybe more clear:

A third situation that is common only ever has a single representation
in the sequence, which selects one of a set of formats possible for
this situation.  This kind […]

> Implementation Hints section.

I append some text showing the encoding of the example at the end of section 4 now.

> sentence about left over data?

It is trying to say that the result of the MUST is that most implementations will detect the wellformedness error (or data left after a well-formed representation) before making use of the data; streaming implementations being the exception that we don’t want to rule out here completely.  How could we clarify this?

> s/Implementation hints/Implementation Hints/

Also fixed now in the above branch.