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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 24 April 2021 22:38 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 D4F1A3A221B; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 aF_N66pOrbFh; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 497D23A2219; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1laQvF-000MLY-QV; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 18:38:45 -0400
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 18:38:39 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>, gen-art@ietf.org
cc: last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-core-new-block.all@ietf.org, core@ietf.org
Message-ID: <3D267D4121127EA65D3C3A7D@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <161930002269.19583.4502578348808948027@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <161930002269.19583.4502578348808948027@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/NQXXcfuCz10Y8aOuoCF-L15R6_c>
Subject: Re: [core] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-core-new-block-10
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: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 22:38:53 -0000


--On Saturday, April 24, 2021 14:33 -0700 Pete Resnick via
Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> 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?

   john