[apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-core-coap-14

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 04 April 2013 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2EE521F8444; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 05:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.152, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ksTiiSjXNtxD; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 05:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (cl-125.lon-03.gb.sixxs.net [IPv6:2a00:14f0:e000:7c::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFBCE21F842C; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 05:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1365079503; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=z/ctoknOlJE8lS+pUhS+n4RonClOaWiFkl5OkKWph8o=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=KBi0JKXJV6yk+SahrMHvTNWMa6qLheD9WxowWwhBr24LdSm5GkVWUAYp4r5pLwuKY3+UZJ nA7GDQ5b8dMkVk3pllTBZGReCkLHDYriP3SeC8+griZAGxfa5L6xxjqPFeyGlQNeaoeRM5 tPpel7d3CVT32B+FEDOILmNWOar4+no=;
Received: from [172.16.1.29] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <UV11zQAF4kGl@waldorf.isode.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 13:45:03 +0100
Message-ID: <515D75FE.9070008@isode.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:45:50 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
To: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-core-coap.all@tools.ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "HE, XUAN -HCHBJ" <xhe@hitachi.cn>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, core@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-core-coap-14
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 12:45:05 -0000

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate (appsdir) 
reviewer for this draft.  (For background on appsdir, please see 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive.  Please wait for direction from your document shepherd 
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-core-coap-14
Title: Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
Reviewer: Xuan He and Alexey Melnikov
Review Date: April 4, 2013
IETF Last Call Date: 27 March 2013
IESG Telechat Date: not known

Summary: This draft is nearly ready for publication as an Standards 
Track RFC.

Major Issues: none.

Minor:

In Section 3, version number field: have you thought about backward 
compatibility rules for future versions (if any) and version negotiation 
rules?

In Section 4.6: is a SHOULD requirement on IP MTU actually valid in this 
document? IMHO, you can't redefine what relevant RFCs say about that.

In 5.10.8, last para: wouldn't it be more correct to say that 
preconditions must be tested after all other verification is performed? 
If not, what is the intent of the MAY?

In 6.4: why is URI's default encoding is UTF-8 and not ASCII? URIs can't 
contain 8bit data. Or did you mean IRIs? (Hopefully you haven't!)

In 6.4: 8/9 - it would be correct to say octet instead of "character" 
when discussing %-decoding. Unicode characters can be represented as 
multiple octets in UTF-8, each octet would be %-encoded separately.


Nits:

In 5.4.6: Strange alignment of figure 10. Should it be center aligned?

In 7.1: the section title is "Service Discovery", but the section is 
talking about "server discovery". These are used as synonyms, but this 
might be confusing to non native English speakers.

In 12.2 Page82: There is a table below Table 6 and without any number.