Re: [core] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-core-senml-data-ct-04

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art