Ballot for draft-schaad-cbor-content
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENTs.
Simple and easy to read document. But, as expressed by Mirja, I would really appreciate an explanation why this document was not even submitted to the CBOR mailing list. Is "getting it done quickly" the only reason ? Regards -éric
Thanks for creating this document. I only have minor editorial comments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please expand "CMS" and "CBOR" in the title, the abstract, and the introduction. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- i-d nits reports: ** There are 8 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 7 characters in excess of 72. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CborContentTypes { iso(1) member-body(2) usa(840) > rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) smime(16) 0 id-mod-cbor-2019(TBD3) } Wouldn't this conventionally be the following? "... smime(16) modules(0) id-mod-cbor-2019(TBD3) ..." ^^^^^^^^^^
Just one minor comment: Section 2 The CBOR content type is intended to be encapsulated in the signed data and auth-enveloped data, but can be included in any CMS wrapper. It cannot be predicted if the compressed CMS encapsulation will provide compression as the content may be binary rather than text. I might reword the "provide compression" bit, perhaps "produce a smaller encoding" or "provide usable compression". (Similarly for the CBOR sequence case.)
No objection on the publication of this document but I really wonder why this was not just published as a document by the cbor working group...? Was there a review by the working group or an announcement on the mailing list?