Last Call Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-
review-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-genart-lc-thomson-2012-10-16-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2012-10-23 | |
Requested | 2012-10-16 | |
Authors | Tony Hansen , Alexey Melnikov | |
I-D last updated | 2012-10-16 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -??
by Martin Thomson
|
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Martin Thomson |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2012-10-16 |
review-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-genart-lc-thomson-2012-10-16-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-06 Reviewer: Martin Thomson Review Date: 2012-10-16 IETF LC End Date: 2012-10-19 IESG Telechat date: 2012-10-25 Summary: This document is ready for publication as a (?) RFC. Minor issues: Is BCP status really appropriate? Informational seems more appropriate for this sort of document. The choice of providing a modicum of guidance in Section 2, as opposed to in the RFC that establishes the registry, could suggest this status, but that seems a bit weak as motivation. Nits: +der doesn't even make a passing reference to +ber. That's odd, since one describes a subset of the other. Mention of schema for +der and +ber doesn't seem relevant to the key security consideration: that structures can be nested indefinitely. This is possible regardless of what the schema says - a generic processor is more likely to fall victim in that regard.