It looks to me as if the new version does not have too much in common
with the original one, so a longer discussion period may be helpful.

A couple of comments:

1) What is meant by "well-formed S-expression"? What is a "binary S-expression"?
2) Read/write are typically used to exchange data (in a textual
format). This SRFI does not provide a way to exchange unreadable
objects between different implementations.
3) The SRFI is probably incompatible to R6RS because R6RS's
read/get-datum must raise a lexical error as soon as an invalid
character is encountered while datum syntax is read.
4) How are cycles/shared data structures going through unreadable
objects handled?
5) The R6RS conditions defined in the SRFI don't have a place in the
condition hierarchy yet.
6) The usefulness of the SRFI is not yet clear to me.

Am Di., 13. Juni 2023 um 20:51 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>:
>
> The rewritten draft of 243 hasn't received any comments. I don't know
> whether that means it's good, bad, or neither.
>
> If someone would like to suggest some changes or to extend the last-call
> period, please say so. Otherwise we'll declare it final within the next
> couple of days.
>