Subject: [Cellar] EBML nits

From: Tessa Fallon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:37:02 -0400

Generated by running nits from:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cellar-ebml/

idnits 2.14.02

/tmp/draft-ietf-cellar-ebml-02.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.  (See Section
     2.2 of http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case
     when there are no actions for IANA.)

  ** There are 18 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
     one being 113 characters in excess of 72.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (February 26, 2017) is 101 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'EBMLParentPath' is mentioned on line 836, but not
     defined

  == Missing Reference: 'EBMLMinOccurrence' is mentioned on line 847, but not
     defined

  == Missing Reference: 'EBMLMaxOccurrence' is mentioned on line 847, but not
     defined

  == Missing Reference: 'PathMinOccurrence' is mentioned on line 850, but not
     defined

  == Missing Reference: 'PathMaxOccurrence' is mentioned on line 850, but not
     defined

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IEEE.754.1985'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ITU.V42.1994'

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2279 (Obsoleted by RFC 3629)

     Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).

---

From: Dave Rice <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 19:19:31 -0400

> On Jun 7, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Tessa Fallon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Generated by running nits from:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cellar-ebml/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cellar-ebml/>
> 
> idnits 2.14.02 
> 
[…]
>   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist <http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist> :
>      2.2 of http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist <http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist> for how to handle the case
There was an earlier conversation on the listserv about this at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/bdLfldsG7bK9A_DXaN9D1Mjkmkw. We considered a mime type for generic EBML but the thread concluded with suggestions that this would be better handled at the EBML Document type level rather than upon EBML itself.

So I’m adding a pull request with the "This document has no IANA actions.” boilerplate. The pull request is here github.com/Matroska-Org/ebml-specification/pull/150 <https://github.com/Matroska-Org/ebml-specification/pull/150>. If there’s other iana considerations that we’ve neglected please mention them.
>      one being 113 characters in excess of 72.
I think this was resolved with some line wrapping fixes in https://github.com/Matroska-Org/ebml-specification/pull/149.

[…]
>   -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. ‘ITU.V42.1994'
Are these comments worth addressing?
>   ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2279 (Obsoleted by RFC 3629)
This was a reference to the UTF-8 spec. I update the version in http://github.com/Matroska-Org/ebml-specification/pull/151.

Dave Rice

---

From: Steve Lhomme <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 17:34:03 +0200

2017-06-09 1:19 GMT+02:00 Dave Rice <[email-masked]>:
> There was an earlier conversation on the listserv about this at
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/bdLfldsG7bK9A_DXaN9D1Mjkmkw. We
> considered a mime type for generic EBML but the thread concluded with
> suggestions that this would be better handled at the EBML Document type
> level rather than upon EBML itself.
>
> So I’m adding a pull request with the "This document has no IANA actions.”
> boilerplate. The pull request is here
> github.com/Matroska-Org/ebml-specification/pull/150. If there’s other iana
> considerations that we’ve neglected please mention them.

LGTM

> I think this was resolved with some line wrapping fixes in
> https://github.com/Matroska-Org/ebml-specification/pull/149.

LGTM

> Are these comments worth addressing?

I would say no. Maybe the format could be different ?

> This was a reference to the UTF-8 spec. I update the version in
> http://github.com/Matroska-Org/ebml-specification/pull/151.

LGTM

> Dave Rice
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cellar mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar
>

-- 
Steve Lhomme
Matroska association Chairman