Subject: Re: [art] Fwd: WGLC: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-02.txt

From: "Matthew A. Miller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:26:45 +0100

My apologies for the extreme lateness of this reply.  Thank you for your
comments, Julian; responding in-line.

> 1) we have a 21 page spec that *updates*, not *obsoletes* a 13 page spec
> - can we please get a stand-alone spec obsoleting the old spec instead?
> 

I personally I don't think there is value in having two documents.
However, I can see value in this draft obsoleting RFC4329 if the WG agrees.

> 2) for all the legacy type registrations, it would be *much* better to
> have a table that lists the differences between these, and just a single
> template for the common parts.
> 

We tried to be clear what the substantive changes are in the IANA
Considerations lede.  I am hesitant to add more complexity to IANA, and
a table to me seems more complicated than this (and this is admittedly
complicated).  For what it's worth, I asked Murray Kucherawy before
drafting this response, who found this workable on first glance.

- m&m

Matthew A. Miller