Review of draft-westerlund-mime-dls-01

[Magnus Westerlund]

Hi,

Thanks for the review, my comments as an author.

Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
> The subject draft is a reasonable contribution to the are of Internet 
> engineering which it covers. It has editorial issues which should be 
> fixed before it is approved.
> 
> The major issue is that, despite the presence of an acceptable Security 
> Considerations section (section 2), the registration in section 3.1 
> points to the Security Considerations section of RFC XXXX. Section 4 is 
> an RFC Editor's note requesting the substitution of the proper number 
> for RFC XXXX. There is no RFC XXXX in the references. Undoubtedly this 
> was the result of a change of plan.

Sorry, the RFC XXXX is the number the document under review will 
receive. We clearly screwed up the clarity of the RFC-editor note. In 
addition there is the wrong section reference in the template. I propose 
that this is fixed with the following RFC-editor note. The reasons for 
the use of XXXX is to enable the cut and paste of the template to 
somewhere else if needed.

Section 3.1:
OLD:
    Security considerations:           see the security considerations
                                       in section 3 of RFC XXXX.

NEW:

    Security considerations:           see the security considerations
                                       in section 2 of RFC XXXX.
                                                  ^


Section 4:

OLD:
    The references to RFC XXXX in the media type registration need to
    be replaced with the actual RFC number when it is issued.

NEW:
    The references to RFC XXXX in the media type registration need to
    be replaced with the actual RFC number this document receives when
    it is issued.


> 
> I had two minor editorial comments:
> 
> In section 2, third paragraph, third line, the phrase "it is stressed" 
> caused a momentary glitch in my mind: "Where is it stressed?". Perhaps 
> the sentence might read better if it were phrased:
> 
> "A key point is that conditional chunks are optional, that is to say a 
> parser does not have to execute a conditional chunk."

Good proposal.

Section 2, third paragraph::

OLD:
    For DLS content containing
    conditional chunks it is stressed that the chunk in question is
    optional, that is to say a parser does not have to execute the
    chunk.

NEW:
    A key point is that conditional chunks are optional, that is to say a
    parser does not have to execute a conditional chunk.


> 
> The other item is an extra "the" in the first line of "Interoperability 
> Considerations" in section 3.1.

Section 3.1, Interoperability Considerations

OLD:
    Interoperability considerations:   This media type is for the
                                       consumption by a MIDI player

NEW:
    Interoperability considerations:   This media type is for
                                       consumption by a MIDI player


Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com