Guidance on Markdown: Design Philosophies, Stability Strategies, and Select Registrations
draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown-use-cases-07

I agree with others that mixing the IANA Registrations in the use cases draft is odd -- specially when the draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown document also exists.  Without the IANA Considerations I would also think that use cases would be better off in a Wiki.  [No need to reply to this, as it has been talked about elsewhere..]

I do have one nit:

Section 2 reads: " [MDMTREG] (draft-05) only defines two parameters: the charset parameter (required for all text/* media types) and the variant parameter."  I think that is still true in the latest version of that draft; the "draft-05" reference should be taken out.

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.

Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS

The "Oops" text is still in Section 4.2. Is that intentional?

Dan Romascanu performed the opsdir review.

benoit's discuss should be addressed.

I'd also like to see a response to the SecDir review, link provided by Stephen.  Thanks.

(Sorry I included this in my comments for the other markdown doc
but it relates to this one. I'll take this out of my ballot comment for
that but not re-tx the mail.)

- Please respond to the secdir review [1] which raised a couple
of questions that deserve answers. (Apologies if I missed your
answer to that.)

   [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05830.html

Clearing my DISCUSS based on the recognition of the concern by all concerned and leaving the fix-up with Shepherd and AD.