Re: [core] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-core-senml-data-ct-04
Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Mon, 20 September 2021 12:09 UTC
Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
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 823713A10BC; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 05:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 a5qKtO0DEm1L; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 05:09:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9931D3A10C0; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 05:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:e984:671f:78cf:fcd1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1A3B9600639; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:09:34 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1632139774; bh=v0lkOIEp/Mhx2DVr1mjrBbCAFZjcsgAyCAeSXD74mKI=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=az8ec7lrgLyPnv9dFk6nyrLg2rka/5qM3Nke32wIiyabbB+q9W6vvsv/nbb4NqTfp YJSdMz4xI/Tm9FOvNkLLFRZiyEWT7ItBXabPO/n8215UaVywE/LQXTjaL5sHymKDwT A+ikALTTmEvMnMvH47rwJ857S2KmAyRZCAF+TkkI=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <C49324F2-1EB6-412C-A448-911D5839BFAC@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AD1292A5-2DC5-4AED-B336-897B55A5CF83"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:09:33 +0300
In-Reply-To: <163092350360.5169.1299765677300317336@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-core-senml-data-ct.all@ietf.org, core@ietf.org
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <163092350360.5169.1299765677300317336@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: 1A3B9600639.A629F
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/b-yBvWmG3vrhoMG74bq6Z2PcM0w>
Subject: Re: [core] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-core-senml-data-ct-04
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: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 12:09:58 -0000
Christer, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Lars > On 2021-9-6, at 13:18, Christer Holmberg via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > Review result: Ready with Nits > > 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-data-ct-04 > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > Review Date: 2021-09-06 > IETF LC End Date: 2021-09-06 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: I have reviewed the document. I have one technical comment, but the > rest is mostly editorial. Related to that, I do think the document could use > some editorial clean-up, e.g., when it comes to consistent terminology. I think > it is also good not to assume that the reader knows CoAP, and to make sure the > appropriate references/explanations are present when CoAP is referred to. > > Major issues: N/A > > Minor issues: > > Q1 (TECHNICAL): > > What happens if the receiver does not support the "ct" value? Is it a > server-error? If so, what response code is used? I think that should be > specified. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Q2 (EDITORIAL): > > The text should use consistent terminology. See below for a few examples: > > The Abstract says: > > "The Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML) media type supports multiple > types of values, from numbers to text strings and arbitrary binary > data values. In order to simplify processing of the data values, > this document proposes to specify a new SenML field for indicating > the Content-Format of the data." > > First the text talks about types of values, and then suddenly the > Content-Format of the data. > > Content-Format is the name of the new field - that is not what you are > indicating. You are using the new field to indicate something. > > Also, "Content-Format" is also used by CoAP, so please check that it is clear > what is referred to whenever mentioned. > > The text in Section 1 says: > > "To facilitate automatic interpretation it is useful to be able to > indicate an Internet media type and content-coding right in the SenML > Record." > > ...and, the test in Section 7 says: > > "The indication of a media type in the data does not exempt a consuming > application from properly checking its inputs." > > Now the text suddenly talks about "an Internet media type and content-coding", > when it earlier (in the Abstract) talked about value of type. > > Q3 (EDITORIAL): > > The text says: > > "The CoAP Content-Format (Section 12.3 of [RFC7252]) provides just this > information" > > I think it would be good with a little introduction on how CoAP is related to > all this. > > Also "provides just this information" probably needs some re-wording. > > Q4 (EDITORIAL): > > Section 6 contains the ABNF for the new fields. > > Is there a reason you don't define them in the same way as the basic field is > defined in RFC 8428 (there is no ABNF)? > > Q5 (EDITORIAL): > > The text in Section 7 says: > > "The indication of a media type in the data does not exempt a consuming > application from properly checking its inputs." > > I assume that by "its inputs" you refer to "received SenML data". > > Shouldn't properly checking inputs be a generic CoAP security consideration? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [core] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-core… Christer Holmberg via Datatracker
- Re: [core] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [core] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of d… Lars Eggert