Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-05
review-ietf-mediaman-haptics-05-genart-lc-knodel-2023-09-11-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2023-09-11
Requested 2023-08-28
Authors Yeshwant K Muthusamy , Chris Ullrich
I-D last updated 2023-09-11
Completed reviews Intdir Last Call review of -05 by Sheng Jiang
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Derrell Piper
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Mallory Knodel
Assignment Reviewer Mallory Knodel
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/TqOyzAUOeTyOtRys9E58FeOnQuY
Reviewed revision 05
Result Ready
Completed 2023-09-11
review-ietf-mediaman-haptics-05-genart-lc-knodel-2023-09-11-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-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.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-??
Reviewer: Mallory Knodel
Review Date: 2023-09-11
IETF LC End Date: 2023-09-11
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: The document aims to register a new media type for 'haptics' by making
the case for why it is needed and doesn't currently fit under existing media
types, as well as provide the relevant information in order to register the new
media type 'haptics' with IANA.

Major issues: Technically, none. Suggest some harmony with the in-progress
[TOPLEVEL] reference (I-D to determine how registration be done for new media
types) to ensure this draft follows that guidance, which is presumably being
developed, in parallel, with community consensus.

Minor issues: This should not stand in the way of progressing the draft and
would be subject to the judgement of the WG chairs, but perhaps much of the
Section 2 background could be moved to an annex as it may be out of date in the
future. This would also allow the IANA registration details, which are
ultimately the most important matter of this text, to appear sooner in the
draft. The background details offer important context, but for the purposes of
registration may not be needed, ie according to [TOPLEVEL] guidance.

Nits/editorial comments: The higher level focus of my review did not reveal any
editorial nits.