[Dots] Nits on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-23

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hello!

I did another review on -23 of the signal channel draft:

No action required
===============
(1) Idnits -- nothing actionable
(2) YANG module (Section 6) IS consistent with initial IANA table (Section 9.3.2) 

Discussion
========
(3) Figure 5 and 6 are inconsistent.  Figure 5 uses 'Uri-Path: "version"' and Figure 6 (and all subsequent figures) uses 'Uri-Path: "v1"'.  It seems like Figure 5 should also use "v1".

(4) Section 4.4.1 states that "major and minor version nomenclature to manage versioning; DOTS signal channel in this specification uses 'v1' major version."   No example shows how a minor version should be expressed.  Is it the obvious "v1.0"?

(5) Registration guidance for DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Mapping Registry is precise.  However, I'm left seeking guidance on how to process messages with fields not specified in this draft (i.e., fields registered after this draft is published).  The closest I can find is language in Section 6 that states "[t]he recipient of the payload MAY reject the  information if it is not suitably mapped."  I would also benefited from a preamble describing the purpose of the registry -- is it a way to extend the protocol with new optional fields?

Roman