Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control-07
review-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control-07-artart-lc-miller-2025-01-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2024-11-20
Requested 2024-11-06
Authors Carsten Bormann
I-D last updated 2025-01-02
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Mališa Vučinić (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -07 by Darrel Miller (diff)
Iotdir Telechat review of -07 by Ari Keränen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Darrel Miller
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/_oD8ONj49dkRpVApuPmMiwNzURg
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2025-01-02
review-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control-07-artart-lc-miller-2025-01-02-00
I am the assigned ART-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (ART-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.

In general the document is clearly written with simple to understand reasoning
for the existence of the new control operators.

My only concern is the use of the the term "decimal" to only support integers. 
Common programming languages like Java, Go, C# and Python use the term decimal
to support fixed-point numbers.  JSON Schemas regularly use "decimal" with the
"format" keyword to convey fractional numbers.  It is also common to use JSON
strings to convey large decimal floating point numbers as has been captured
here in the format registry for JSON Schemas used with OpenAPI
https://spec.openapis.org/registry/format/decimal128.html

Is there a reason for not calling the operator .integer instead, considering
only integer values are supported?