Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11

[Pete Resnick]

Thanks for the review Thomas. Comments inline, only on those things that 
you had as issues:


On 21 Apr 2024, at 13:03, Thomas Fossati via Datatracker wrote:


* (234:23): error: This parser will truncate strings at %x00
* (236:28): error: This parser will truncate strings at %x00
* (238:25): error: This parser will truncate strings at %x00
* parsing failed: 3 errors encountered

I don't understand what the error message is trying to tell me though.


Looks to me like it is complaining about long lines once unwrapped. 
Nothing to fix here AFAICT.



1. It'd be good to state the reasons why this document updates 3864
earlier than in §6.1.  [1] recommends using the intro section for 
that.


Given that 3864 and 4021 are purely about IANA considerations, it seemed 
silly to call them out in the Abstract or Section 1 since they are not 
of technical import to the document.



2. Any reason for using the .test TLD rather than .example?  RFC2606
says: ".test" is recommended for use in testing of current or new DNS
related code. ".example" is recommended for use in documentation or as
examples.

[1] https://authors.ietf.org/required-content, Introduction checklist


Two reasons: First, we needed enough easily distinguishable example 
addresses and using only .example and example. seemed like it 
would be too easily confused visually. But second, we were having 
problems keeping the examples to 72 characters for the text versions of 
the document. Using .test seemed the safest way to address the problem 
given that 2606 reserves it. Any downside you can see in using it?



Nits/editorial comments:

In §1.2.3:

OLD:
  One reason for this latter requirement is that there are
  long-established sites on the Internet with mail archives that go 
back

  decades, archives with messages containing these elements.

NEW:
  One reason for this latter requirement is that long-established
  Internet sites have mail archives dating back decades with messages
  containing these elements.


No objection. Works for me.


In §3.6.4:

OLD:
  Though listed as optional in the table (Table 1) in section 3.6

NEW:
  Though listed as optional in Table 1 of Section 3.6


That's an annoying artifact of xml2rfc. I'll have a go at fixing it.

Thanks again,

pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11

[Thomas Fossati via Datatracker]

Reviewer: Thomas Fossati
Review result: Ready with Issues

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

.

Document: draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11
Reviewer: Thomas Fossati
Review Date: 2024-04-21
IETF LC End Date: 2024-04-29
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

The document is clear and the changes from 5322 are fairly small-scale.

There are some small changes to 5322's ABNF which look syntactically OK
to me.  However, running the ABNF checker on
draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11.txt returns:

* (234:23): error: This parser will truncate strings at %x00
* (236:28): error: This parser will truncate strings at %x00
* (238:25): error: This parser will truncate strings at %x00
* parsing failed: 3 errors encountered

I don't understand what the error message is trying to tell me though.

Re: IANA Considerations.  There are changes in the registry schema and
the registration template to add the trace indicator.  The instructions
are clear.

Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

1. It'd be good to state the reasons why this document updates 3864
earlier than in §6.1.  [1] recommends using the intro section for that.

2. Any reason for using the .test TLD rather than .example?  RFC2606
says: ".test" is recommended for use in testing of current or new DNS
related code. ".example" is recommended for use in documentation or as
examples.

[1] https://authors.ietf.org/required-content, Introduction checklist 

Nits/editorial comments:

In §1.2.3:

OLD:
  One reason for this latter requirement is that there are
  long-established sites on the Internet with mail archives that go back
  decades, archives with messages containing these elements.

NEW:
  One reason for this latter requirement is that long-established
  Internet sites have mail archives dating back decades with messages
  containing these elements.

In §3.6.4:

OLD:
  Though listed as optional in the table (Table 1) in section 3.6

NEW:
  Though listed as optional in Table 1 of Section 3.6




___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-25

[Daniel Fett]

Thank you Thomas for your feedback!

I merged your PR and will release a new version soon.

-Daniel

Am 18.02.24 um 15:52 schrieb Thomas Fossati via Datatracker:

Reviewer: Thomas Fossati
Review result: Ready

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

.

Document: draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-25
Reviewer: Thomas Fossati
Review Date: 2024-02-18
IETF LC End Date: 2024-02-22
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

This document contains the BCP for OAuth 2.0

It is well written, with a clear structure, and it contains a wealth of useful 
information.

Thank you, editors and the OAUTH WG for an excellent document.

Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

None

Nits/editorial comments:

I have filed a PR to fix a few typos.

[1]https://github.com/oauthstuff/draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics/pull/90

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art