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

Lars Eggert <> Wed, 26 May 2021 12:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F43E3A2D19; Wed, 26 May 2021 05:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P6rml0ZeSlzF; Wed, 26 May 2021 05:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39F673A2D1A; Wed, 26 May 2021 05:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E39DB600303; Wed, 26 May 2021 15:34:35 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=dkim; t=1622032476; bh=40NmERBIoI2ibADY+5T+RgZAltqheV2rkzsUUx1tbKU=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=bNuJ7RS/de46pKfU3odNYQDf3Um+4rcs/BxwEHjyEg0mX83x6JqK8277FOFoESF5q GNIGsy10xyrHsQ2CxMJE6olhaJ0dw/blxFEiqQIlLNi/tlQRwR110J038eNN5lNQYB AU2jt+8OW/K4FBMkVsXRGSGzDoJXy1QnniITMUvs=
From: Lars Eggert <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_10A6FDB3-FAEA-4C72-980D-732EC460BDF4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 15:34:35 +0300
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: General Area Review Team <>,,,
To: Elwyn Davies <>
References: <>
X-MailScanner-ID: E39DB600303.A29DB
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [core] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-core-senml-versions-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 12:34:49 -0000

Elwyn, thank you for your review and thank you all for the following discussion. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Based on my checks, the latest version addresses your review issues; please let me know if you disagree.


> On 2021-5-3, at 21:56, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <> 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
> <>.
> 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?
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list