Subject: [Cbor] Starting WGLC on draft-iet-cbor-sequence

From: Jim Schaad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 08:56:02 -0700

This starts a two week WG last call on this document.  Please send mail to
the mailing list that you have read the document and do or do not feel it is
ready to progress along with any issues that you believe need to be dealt
with.

We should discuss any open issues at the interim call on Aug 28.

CBOR Chairs
Jim & Francesca

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 18:10:45 +0200

When answering the WGLC, please note that the author is aware of the formatting glitch in Section 6.3.  The spurious line-spacing seems to be caused by a bug in xml2rfc, which will not be fixed during European Vacation Month™ August, but eventually will be (at the latest by the RFC editor).

Grüße, Carsten

PS.: My next vacation is Sep4-19th.

> On Aug 14, 2019, at 17:56, Jim Schaad <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
>

---

From: Jim Schaad <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:59:19 -0700

Here is my WGLC review - and also a reminder that people need to, at a
minimum, say that they have no problems with the document.  The hope is to
close the WGLC before the next CBOR interim.

Jim

1.  Section 1: Should the introduction note the registration in the CBOR
content format registry as well?  I have no personal opinion on this.

2.  Section 2: I find the paragraph about delimiters slightly difficult to
read.  Something that might be better is:

CBOR Sequences, unlike JSON Text Sequences [], do not use a marker between
items.   This is because CBOR data items are self-delimiting and the end can
always be calculated.  This is no longer true for JSON as a simple value
such as an number is now a JSON document.

This reads slightly better in my opinion and also highlights why JSON is no
longer self-delimiting.

3.  Section2: In the second bullet under decode - would "deliver a sequence
of CBOR data model values" be better as "deliver one or more CBOR data model
values" ?  I don't have a personal opinion, I just wonder if avoiding
sequence is better in this context.

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 21:51:20 +0200

> We should discuss any open issues at the interim call on Aug 28.

I have put proposals on how to handle the first five WGLC comments into the Editor’s copy:

Please see individual commits at:
https://github.com/cbor-wg/seq/commits/master

All diffs:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-cbor-sequence.txt&url2=https://cbor-wg.github.io/seq/draft-ietf-cbor-sequence.txt

Editor’s copy:
https://cbor-wg.github.io/seq/draft-ietf-cbor-sequence.html

Please keep those useful comments coming!  I plan to address anything that comes in on Monday or Tuesday in time for the Wednesday interim.

Grüße, Carsten