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

Jaime Jiménez <jaime@iki.fi> Wed, 26 May 2021 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <jaime@iki.fi>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1B1D3A2F69; Wed, 26 May 2021 06:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kZdLxFgX9LsW; Wed, 26 May 2021 06:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wforward4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wforward4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99FEA3A2F49; Wed, 26 May 2021 06:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailforward.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F5A810F7; Wed, 26 May 2021 09:49:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap3 ([10.202.2.53]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 26 May 2021 09:49:14 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=+MBdXqFLHidUmqG1ZmMuB7VWCe/O/UB/AHgxIMJif qQ=; b=pX7uW7jLvRwACWwu4bFqEgDPM6KrCqunXP8Y6WiGHx8O9UC5R7gAQYi6V jCNNeDR2S00Gpfpdz6z0O2Hvh0yzEowOFQSvb1mT9lNBQMTlNRua+RJF7zAOZZ+7 +0lK+piMf9VF/6Guhy23+NigP5Q4m6B0xUomWyrqLyWZdvJfJ3KV8vPUqFLWmN27 baXV6k+FLsGZkEHNIV5hp4AXIhSIPVuXUi4kw7M+R+ajymZ/h4GqMPtSgE7KmWjL 0mgSeBg3BiLyFuNsc1wMsTnt318ZJWSsfa5YWxS9ijOPXjSAdy6JTzmU8crxGNlT vGtOUHy40v52uP2j5jQl3nyMC/7Ew==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:2FGuYCHd0X5WfQDgOC46BX4v3l1LV4vhyPPqU_eKhQKxU4byzhvcaA> <xme:2FGuYDXpaEx9PfCbUjGjs72_HmVrZiOhVX9HJ4OPCEqLVxOpFrBwQ43KYjn4TdBJH erhbvCXKHh9l21Tmw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdekfedgieelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgfgsehtqhertderreejnecuhfhrohhmpeflrghi mhgvpgflihhmrohnvgiiuceojhgrihhmvgesihhkihdrfhhiqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrh hnpeetffejffegvefhgeegfffhuefhiedvhfefleefvdetgfefleehudffgffggfdtuden ucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhfrdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrg hrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepjhgrihhmvgesihhkihdrfhhi
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:2FGuYMJBbbQUIlayav7qHdYLqNRewnMkzpbB05n5bq8kO9Hp8dK2EA> <xmx:2FGuYMG3VBt-gzWeUYxyHJyMTds9Y-TDLHuZEMOYo64UCwQgVTErkg> <xmx:2FGuYIVnWcBvBEKnwQmUxtcwALywg8uSSn2HLuBLR1p9DSiPpWOYYA> <xmx:2VGuYPQ-jG8XgjgpNt520CLqbo69EDIAnxbV5RZn3pxk_lcdS8Tla0xEsVk>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 88365420453; Wed, 26 May 2021 09:49:12 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-448-gae190416c7-fm-20210505.004-gae190416
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <2f560969-0df0-4bd0-aded-34e202221067@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E3270C23-9CB5-4D8C-840E-FFA0B24C2D2F@tzi.org>
References: <162006820882.8146.574742678195359661@ietfa.amsl.com> <E3270C23-9CB5-4D8C-840E-FFA0B24C2D2F@tzi.org>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 16:48:51 +0300
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jaime_Jim=C3=A9nez?= <jaime@iki.fi>
To: "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org>, "Elwyn Davies" <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, core@ietf.org, draft-ietf-core-senml-versions.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/Le7IjDlCs_7YMF4AQXHxMIXz1LI>
Subject: Re: [core] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-core-senml-versions-02
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 13:49:22 -0000

Hi Carsten, 

Small nit. I had a quick read of the diff and although section 2 looks good with the new HTML and CSS, the formula looks mangled in the data tracker format ("present(fc)&nbsp;⋅&nbsp;2").

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-core-senml-versions-03.txt

Ciao!
-- 
Jaime Jiménez

On Sun, May 9, 2021, at 10:51 PM, 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.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-senml-versions/
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-core-senml-versions-03.html
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-core-senml-versions-03.txt
> 
> 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 <noreply@ietf.org> 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
> > 
> > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> > 
> > 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?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>