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

Carsten Bormann <> Sun, 09 May 2021 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D81BE3A1D62; Sun, 9 May 2021 12:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.004
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k0ugxhYsn9wE; Sun, 9 May 2021 12:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 386203A1D5E; Sun, 9 May 2021 12:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FdZZk0BpmzymM; Sun, 9 May 2021 21:51:58 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 9 May 2021 21:51:57 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 642282717.514873-4ca94560db0b827ddb32b763c4b2be40
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Elwyn Davies <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [core] 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: Sun, 09 May 2021 19:52:06 -0000

Hi Elwyn,

I finally got around to process your review.

I have submitted a new version -03 based on this review.
I could make direct use of your text suggestions, but did edit them a little.
So you may want to have another look at the second paragraph of 1 (introduction) and the new section 2.2, which address your main points.

That was a great, thoughtful review.
Thanks again!

CoRE WG: Please also check the above documents and diffs!

Grüße, Carsten

> On 2021-05-03, at 20:56, 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?