Re: [core] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-core-senml-versions-02

Lars Eggert <> Wed, 26 May 2021 09:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED3563A2888; Wed, 26 May 2021 02:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id awiHNT9Y3EF7; Wed, 26 May 2021 02:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:211:32ff:fe22:186f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97ED03A2879; Wed, 26 May 2021 02:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A39AD600047; Wed, 26 May 2021 12:58:39 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=dkim; t=1622023119; bh=UvVbk6itdI4gKEyloi3HUTWVUjeqJp+Ww/bUkg/Lkss=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=NkUHc8tMDKG8NKrIkFoeky3NsvQJwOXMK4MztdFoQShW2KZphoO2FkqIrAfXjLIj4 lBuYTIbzsyxRgfCqaF6N6j3y+OkH80pnwLTVthWLXAxeCKMScoNih3A9db1xk2Lq6g veD4BqmCzS4VCdnNrRhGrGRjD/8s+C01HdO1BDe0=
From: Lars Eggert <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0F521FE0-CA28-4184-901A-545EA710896B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 12:58:38 +0300
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Elwyn Davies <>,,, General Area Review Team <>,
To: Carsten Bormann <>
References: <> <>
X-MailScanner-ID: A39AD600047.A219A
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [core] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-core-senml-versions-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 09:58:54 -0000

Hi Elwyn,

have you had a chance to check whether the -03 version of the I-D addresses your review?


On 2021-5-9, at 22:51, Carsten Bormann <> wrote:
> Hi Elwyn,
> I finally got around to process your review.
> I have submitted a new version -03 based on this review.
> I could make direct use of your text suggestions, but did edit them a little.
> So you may want to have another look at the second paragraph of 1 (introduction) and the new section 2.2, which address your main points.
> That was a great, thoughtful review.
> Thanks again!
> CoRE WG: Please also check the above documents and diffs!
> Grüße, Carsten
>> On 2021-05-03, at 20:56, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <> wrote:
>> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
>> Review result: Almost Ready
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>> like any other last call comments.
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>> <>.
>> Document: draft-ietf-core-senml-versions-02
>> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
>> Review Date: 2021-05-03
>> IETF LC End Date: 2021-05-03
>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>> Summary:  Almost ready.  There is one issue that needs to be sorted out.  This
>> document removes the ordering relationship between the values of version..
>> Section 4.4 of RFC 8428 relies on that ordering relationahip.  Accordingly
>> there needs to be explicit new text for Section 4.4 in this document.  Also the
>> concept of 'must understand' items is used in this document but is not
>> explicitly defined in RFC 8428.  This needs to be fixed - which could happen in
>> the new version of Setion 4.4.
>> Major issues:
>> None
>> Minor issues:
>> The redefinition of version means that this document should contain an explicit
>> update of (at least)  paragraph 3 of Section 4.4 of RFC 8428,  That section
>> assumes that there is an ordering relationship between version field values
>> which is invalidated by this document.
>> Also the concept of 'must understand' fields is supposed to be explained in
>> that section as well as discussed in s2.1 of this document.  That term is not
>> explicitly used in RFC 8428 but I take it that it is supposed to refer to field
>> names ending wth an underscore character ('_').  This should be fixed with a
>> rewrite of s4.4 of RFC 8428.
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>> General:  The RFC Editor preferes the US convention for quoting items using
>> exclusively singe quote rather than double quote marks.
>> s1, para 2:  I found this paragraph difficult to parse, especially the second
>> sentence.  Here is an alternative suggestion. OLD: The traditional idea of
>> using a version number for evolving an interchange format presupposes a linear
>> progression of that format. A more likely form of evolution of SenML is the
>> addition of independently selectable _features_ that can be added to the base
>> version (version 10) in a fashion that these are mostly independent of each
>> other. A recipient of a SenML pack can check the features it implements against
>> those required by the pack, processing the pack only if all required features
>> are provided in the implementation. NEW: The traditional idea of using a
>> version number to indicate the evolution of an interchage format generally
>> assmes an incremental progression of the version number as the format develops
>> over time. However in the case of SenML it is expected that the likely
>> evolution mechanism will be for independently selectable capabiity _features_
>> to be added to the basic system indicated by 'version' 10. To support this
>> model, this document repurposes the single version number accompanying a pack
>> of SenML records so that it is interpreted as a bitmap indicating the set of
>> features a recipient would need to have implemented to be able to process the
>> pack. ENDS
>> s2:  Personally I would have used the left shift operator rather then 2^fc but
>> that is a personal view.
>> s2,1, para 2: s/lower-most bit positions Section 3./least significant bit
>> positions for the base version as described in Section 3./
>> s2.1, para 2:  s/Section 4/by the feature defined in Section 4/
>> s2.1, para 2: 'boutique' is slang:  s/boutique/less generally applicable/
>> s3: s/already/effectively already/
>> s6:  I am not we really care but are feature names case sensitve?
> --
> last-call mailing list