erik-response

Thanks for your comments. Our notes are below.

--Paul Hoffman

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [[ questions ]]
> 
> [ section 3.3 ]
> 
> * Is it worth comparing and contrasting this encoding format with RFC 4506
>  section 4.6?  Are they identical?

They are not, and so probably not worth comparing, because...

> [[ comments ]]
> 
> [ section 1 ]
> 
> * I suppose XDR (4506) isn't well-known anymore.  :-(
>  (no edits necessary, just a comment)

...of that. That is, no one asked us to make the comparison when we wrote RFC 7049.

> [[ nits ]]
> 
> [ section 1.2 ]
> 
> * "does not include following extraneous data"
>  Is "following" important, or is it just "does not include other
>  extraneous data"?

Using "following" is important in that extraneous data could possibly appear before an item (although that seems weird).

 
> [ section 3.4.1 ]
> 
> * Perhaps "another type or that" -> "another type or a text string that"

Good catch; fixed.

> [ section 5.6 ]
> 
> * Perhaps "Not accept maps duplicate keys"
>  -> "Not accept maps with duplicate keys"?

Yes, definitely. Fixed.