Re: [dtn] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-09

[Rick Taylor <[e-mail]>]

Hi Marco,

Thank you for the review, comments inline...

On 10/02/2024 09:58, Marco Tiloca via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Marco Tiloca
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I reviewed this document as part of the Applications and Real-Time (ART) Area
> Review Team's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by
> the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the ART Area
> Directors. Document authors, document editors, and WG Chairs should treat these
> comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments.
>
> [Section 1]
>
> * "This document updates the specification"
>
>     Consistent with the abstract, and in order to explicitly mention what
>     documents are updated and why, I suggest to refer again to RFC 7116 and RFC
>     9171. For example:
>
>     NEW
>     > By updating [RFC7116] and [RFC9171], this document updates the
>     specification ...
Yeah, Russ Housley recommended a rewording of this as well. I will blend 
both your recommendations to improve the text.
>
> [Section 2]
>
> * "Every ipn URI, no matter the textual representation or binary encoding, ..."
>
>    Perhaps do you mean the following?
>
>    "Every ipn URI, no matter whether it is expressed with the textual
>    representation or the binary encoding, ..."
+1 - Yes, that's better!
>
> [Section 3.2.1]
>
> * "... all ranges MUST be of a length that is a power of 2, and for given range
> of length N bits, ..."
>
>     This phrasing does not match with the values in the column "Range Length
>     (Bits)" of the following table, which of course do not have to be a power of
>     2.
>
>     I think you mean:
>
>     "... all ranges MUST be of a size S that is a power of 2, and for a given
>     range of length N bits, with S = 2^N, ..."
+1 - Yes we do.  That's better text.  We tried not to get too "math" but 
it's needed.
>
> [Section 3.2.2]
>
> * s/and assigned the/and by assigning the
>
> [Appendix B.2]
>
> * "ipn:977000.1.2"
>
>     Should this not be ipn:977000.1.1 ?
>
>     The first sentence in this section refers to Service Number 1.
Let me double check, but I suspect you're right
>
> [Nits]
>
> * Section 1
> - s/Therefore the/Therefore, the
> - s/that like most/that, like most
>
> * Section 2
> - s/document the term/document, the term
>
> * Section 3.2.1
> - s/for given range/for a given range
> - s/B and any/B, and any
>
> * Section 3.3.1
> - s/In examples/In the examples
> - s/e.g./e.g.,
>
> * Section 4
> - s/in Appendix A (Appendix A)/in Appendix A
> - s/i.e./i.e.,
> - s/an LocalNode ipn URI/a LocalNode ipn URI
> - s/in Appendix B (Appendix B)/in Appendix B
>
> * Section 5.4
> - s/or BPv6 EID it is/or BPv6 EID, it is
>
> * Section 5.6
> - s/to by identified by/to be identified by
>
> * Section 6
> - s/is CBOR encoded/is encoded with CBOR [RFC8949]
>
> * Section 6.1
> - s/Appendix D (Appendix D)./Appendix D.
>
> * Section 7.2
> - s/where-by/whereby
>
>
>
All good catches!

I have an updated draft with these changes I will push out today.


Cheers,

Rick