Review of draft-westerlund-mime-dls-01

[Ted Hardie]

I have the added the RFC Editor notes Magnus proposed to the ballot, so
that they will be considered by the IESG during Thursday's telechat.
			regards,
				Ted Hardie



At 7:55 AM +0200 3/26/06, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>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