Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL): Additional Control Operators for the Conversion and Processing of Text
draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control-08
Yes
Orie Steele
No Objection
Deb Cooley
Erik Kline
Gunter Van de Velde
Jim Guichard
Mahesh Jethanandani
(Francesca Palombini)
(John Scudder)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Orie Steele
Yes
Deb Cooley
No Objection
Erik Kline
No Objection
Gunter Van de Velde
No Objection
Jim Guichard
No Objection
Mahesh Jethanandani
No Objection
Paul Wouters
No Objection
Comment
(2025-01-06 for -07)
Sent
The table in Section 1 feels redundant. I wouldn't object to its removal.
"opinionated" is a strange word to use. Can it be replaced by something else?
Maybe "strict" ? Or just remove the constructs that have the word in it? Standards
are not opinionated, they are specifications :P
While Section 4 of [RFC7493] probably is not relevant to this specification
Then why mention it here?
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment
(2025-01-08 for -07)
Sent
(updated ballot) Thank you to Joel Halpern for the GENART review. ** Should this document update RFC8610?
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment
(2025-01-02 for -07)
Sent
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control-07 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). Special thanks to A.J. Stein for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status. Please note that Henk Birkholz is the IoT directorate reviewer (at my request) and you may want to consider this iot-dir review as well when it will be available (no need to wait for it though): https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control/reviewrequest/21141/ I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### Title The title is really vague `More control operators`, suggest to use a more specific title, e.g., "Text Conversion and Processing Control Operators for CDDL". ### Section 2.1 Who is `we` in this context? The author? the WG? the whole IETF ? Please avoid using this sentence structure. Should `QR code` have an informational reference ? ### Section 3.1 I smiled a lot when reading IPv4 = legacy IP ;-)
Francesca Palombini Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Not sent
John Scudder Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Not sent
Murray Kucherawy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2025-01-08 for -07)
Sent
Thanks to Darrel Miller for his ARTART review.
Warren Kumari Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2025-01-06 for -07)
Sent
No comments, other than to thank Ari Keränenm for, and reinforce the suggestion in, the IOTDIR review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control-07-iotdir-telechat-keranen-2025-01-03/
Zaheduzzaman Sarker Former IESG member
No Objection