Subject: [dispatch] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-10

From: Robert Sparks via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 13:29:15 -0800

Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-10
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2021-11-11
IETF LC End Date: 2021-11-15
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready (but with nits) for publication as an Informational RFC

The number of messages in the archive about the draft are impressive, if not
daunting. Apologies if any of my nits tread old ground.

I'm glad this has seen attention from many people better with i18n than I am.

I'm curious why the registrations choose to declare the .mjs extension in
anything but the now preferred type. If they're in all the obsoleted type
registrations because they're used in the wild with those types, fine. But if
it was a template replication process that put them there, maybe reconsider?

I agree with Mark that the form and repetition of variants of 'not part of this
document' is unusual. Consider saying it less, and maybe consolidating what you
do need to say.

There are a few places where the document says implementations or scripts MUST
consider something. Neither of those things can consider. Please consider
rephrasing those to speak of the implementers or script creators. This is also
not a great use of 2119/8174 terms. Think about using plain words instead.

The last sentence of the second paragraph of section 3 doesn't fit with the
first. Perhaps it should stand alone.

Please point explicitly to the types registry in the text of the document.

Micro-nit: search for timin`g