[dtn-interest] Review of draft-dtnrg-ltp-cbhe-registries-04

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Mon, 24 December 2012 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <tony.li@tony.li>
X-Original-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EC9421F87E3 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:52:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.118
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.118 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.281, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XcfaA3bTGSa4 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:52:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta11.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta11.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe2d:44:76:96:27:211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C47421F87EA for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:52:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta17.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.73]) by qmta11.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id fUuP1k0011afHeLABWsQb6; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 18:52:24 +0000
Received: from sjc-vpn3-1434.cisco.com ([128.107.239.233]) by omta17.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id fWpm1k00N52qHCY8dWq7lb; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 18:50:22 +0000
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:50:06 -0800
Message-Id: <559D3D37-9048-4115-A8B5-F9C02181500B@tony.li>
To: Internet Research Steering Group <irsg@irtf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1356375144; bh=XRDHmXgQVnPQQLtQulF01ssk61IV62yUMHwjYjdGFz8=; h=Received:Received:From:Content-Type:Subject:Date:Message-Id:To: Mime-Version; b=dSFAZ/O1OuaWt8quJF1r07CRYKLmaCM1KD7rHjHOE56cQNwrxFXlLV2Vzh8Cp2sAn sD+0ZXN/zsPHSXkoiV41cmR9EAZ+NvR4d7e5csFD3t+y7olk1SvQq+3F6qtvDh3FZx gPIJNWyzj7pK46rDteqhlI5jJ+3dgEsKJhooi9ohr4t01rhXsnxowjD0AKotsj+Xg+ OzrRNihLWMdeRi1MRCToO5WYDozHym9T3YLgP/MeQ8w3qcdjKuER1N2eNO3uM7L5mS PbSwQYhfA2Lq8yOGzO4BYjYpZ7dJIyjzC0QgduMO8MH9S9BHUkCV+ujoLLi/SiCZvz w4mzoFWeEWYQQ==
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:04:24 -0800
Cc: dtn-interest@irtf.org
Subject: [dtn-interest] Review of draft-dtnrg-ltp-cbhe-registries-04
X-BeenThere: dtn-interest@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The Delay-Tolerant Networking Research Group \(DTNRG\) - Announce." <dtn-interest.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn-interest>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn-interest@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 18:52:24 -0000

Hi,

This is the IRSG review for draft-dtnrg-ltp-cbhe-registries-04 in compliance with RFC 5743.

This reviewer is not familiar with DTN or LTP [RFC 5326], so this review is primarily editorial.

The purpose of this document is to establish the necessary IANA registries for the LTP protocol.  As LTP was originally published in 2008, this is somewhat overdue.  The document  requests five new registries.  The document is clear, cogent, and consistent.

The only concern that I would raise is about the use of FORTRAN style exponentiation in expressing the values for the registry.  This reviewer cannot recall having seen this done in an I*TF document previously, and is (sadly) concerned that the IANA and other members of the community might not know this notation.  This reviewer recommends submission to the IANA in the current format anyway, as this notation is highly appropriate for the DTN community, but if this becomes an editorial issue, we suggest the use of hexadecimal instead.

Happy Holidays,
Tony Li
Chair, Routing Research Group