Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cellar-ebml-13
review-ietf-cellar-ebml-13-opsdir-lc-bhandari-2019-11-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-cellar-ebml
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2019-11-07
Requested 2019-10-24
Authors Steve Lhomme, Dave Rice , Moritz Bunkus
Draft last updated 2019-11-08
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Valery Smyslov (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Valery Smyslov (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Shwetha Bhandari (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -14 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Shwetha Bhandari
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-ietf-cellar-ebml-13-opsdir-lc-bhandari-2019-11-08
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/rKgkF8GfDGsycL9tyt0tiV8AxTg
Reviewed revision 13 (document currently at 17)
Result Ready
Completed 2019-11-08
review-ietf-cellar-ebml-13-opsdir-lc-bhandari-2019-11-08-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts per guidelines in RFC5706 .
Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Summary:

   This document defines the Extensible Binary Meta Language (EBML) format as a
   generalized file format for any type of data in a hierarchical form.  EBML
   is designed as a binary equivalent to XML and uses a storage-efficient
   approach to build nested Elements. Similar to how an XML Schema defines the
   structure and semantics of an XML Document, this document defines  EBML
   Schemas to convey the semantics of an EBML Document.

 The draft does not impact operational considerations listed in RFC 5706.
However similar to concerns expressed in  GENART review the document is
standard track and defines general purpose markup language. If this is
applicable beyond cellar to other protocols then it needs wider review.