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to the judgement of the WG chairs, but perhaps much of the Section 2 background could be moved to an annex as it may be out of date in the future.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.