Re: [core] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-core-new-block-10

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Saturday, April 24, 2021 18:33 -0500 Pete Resnick
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 24 Apr 2021, at 17:38, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
>> --On Saturday, April 24, 2021 14:33 -0700 Pete Resnick via
>> Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
>>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> ...
>> 
>>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>> 
>>> In section 4.3:
>>> 
>>> In several response code definitions:
>>> 
>>>    The token used MUST be any token that was received in a
>>> request using    the same Request-Tag.
>>> 
>>> That doesn't really parse well. I think you either mean "The
>>> token used MUST be a token" or you mean "The token used can
>>> be any token".
>> 
>> If the first meaning is intended, isn't that tautologically
>> true?  If the token used is not a token, what would it be?
> 
> You need to put it in the context of the example give. It
> could be:
> 
>      The token used MUST be a token that was received in a
>      request using the same Request-Tag.
> 
> which means it can't be a token with a different Request-Tag,
> or it could be:
> 
>      The token used can be any token that was received in a
>      request using the same Request-Tag.
> 
> which means that there might be different tokens that use the
> same Request-Tag, but you can use any of them.

Ack.  Thanks.
   john