Re: [apps-discuss] review of draft-bormann-cbor-04
ray polk <ray.polk@oracle.com> Sat, 10 August 2013 21:12 UTC
Return-Path: <ray.polk@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB23D21F99D2; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XeLGnhPR8f3V; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E041B21F9957; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r7AL32kh017212 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 10 Aug 2013 21:03:02 GMT
Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7AL2xbI002505 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 10 Aug 2013 21:02:59 GMT
Received: from abhmt103.oracle.com (abhmt103.oracle.com [141.146.116.55]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7AL2wjQ029020; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 21:02:58 GMT
Received: from [192.168.1.77] (/68.89.236.138) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:02:58 -0700
Message-ID: <5206AA6C.5080702@oracle.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 15:02:36 -0600
From: ray polk <ray.polk@oracle.com>
Organization: Oracle Corporation
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Claudio Allocchio <claudio.allocchio@garr.it>, draft-bormann-cbor.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <0c97e5e4-52b2-44e7-b910-5343d4f55d4b@default> <52052B51.1010202@oracle.com> <0d21de34-1a6d-4265-89f2-c1f581afead8@email.android.com>
In-Reply-To: <0d21de34-1a6d-4265-89f2-c1f581afead8@email.android.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010602070801010705050301"
X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] review of draft-bormann-cbor-04
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 21:12:26 -0000
I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer for this draft. For background on apps-review, please see http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team Document: draft-bormann-cbor-04 Title: Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Reviewer: Ray Polk Review Date: 10 August 2013 Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. Major Issues: - none -- After pouring over the binary/hex and the mapping to/from json, I couldn't find a single mistake. It meets its objectives and addresses the primary issues of msgpack (extensibility, open standard, different types for string and byte streams) Minor Issues: - none Editorial / Nits: 2. - Consider striking "For the impatient reader," or rephrasing for tone. - Consider referring to the type section after "...the major type (the high-order 3 bits)..." ? - "Every item between the byte string with the indefinite length indicator and..." Consider something like "...CBOR item with type byte string..." ? 2.3. - Consider swapping the last two paragraphs; providing detail about simple type before discussing floating point (to match order laid out in Table 1). 2.4. - consider continuing the use of "preceded by" as found in the first sentence; perhaps eliminating the "enclosed by" phrasing. use of the term "enclosed by" implies a closing "break" or closing tag. - "A secondary purpose it to allow..." > "A secondary purpose is to allow..." - consider using MAY in this section to highlight its optional nature. 2.4.3. - consider breaking up the run-on sentence that begins: "An example of a decimal fraction is that the number 273.15..." 3. - Much of section 3 could be condensed (or even moved into an informational RFC?). It's a little verbose/redundant. The most helpful bits are obfuscated/diluted by the less helpful ones. For example, sections 3.2.2 & 3.2.3. are redundant. consider making them one paragraph instead of three: A parser may come across a simple value Section 2.3 or a tag Section 2.4 that it does not recognize, such as a value that was added to the IANA registry after the parser was deployed or a value that the parser chose not to implement. Further, a parser might or might not want to verify that the sequence of bytes in an UTF-8 string (major type 3) is actually valid UTF-8. In these cases, the parser might issue a warning, might stop processing altogether, might handle the error and make the incorrectly-typed value available to the application as such, or take some other type of action. I think similar improvements could be made to other 3.x subsections. Appendix E The draft states, "BSON specification is 'baroque,' clouded by requirements for DB" -- consider adding a corresponding objective that this violates and citing it here. > On 7/17/2013 1:25 PM, Ray Polk wrote: > > I will complete a review by August 9th. Regards, Ray ----- > Original Message ----- From: Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it To: > ray.polk@oracle.com Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, July > 17, 2013 11:45:17 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain Subject: > review of draft-bormann-cbor-04 Hello Ray, could you please > perform a review of draft-bormann-cbor-04 by August 13th > (which is the LC end date) ? Please let us know and ack ! > thanks indeed and all th best! > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Claudio Allocchio G A R R Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Senior T! > echnical Officer tel: +39 040 3758523 Italian Academic and > G=Claudio; S=Allocchio; fax: +39 040 3758565 Research Network > P=garr; A=garr; C=it; PGP Key: > http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca > >