Re: [dtn] AD evaluation of draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-13

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I looked at the attached changes and here are some comments. Note, I
found some additional editorial issues that should be addressed. 

1. Section 2: Instead of using the home made boiler plate I would
suggest that you use RFC 8174 and its proposed boiler plate.

2. Section 4.1.3: Bit 8. The Manifest block extension. I forsee that
people will have issues with the lack of normative reference. So either
normatively reference the manifest specification, alternatively mark it
reserved, and a informative note that it is inteded for this manifest
block. Then have the manifest block assign itself this bit when
actually published?

3. Section 4.3: 

This section has additional normative reference requirements. As
currently formulated it most definitely makes teh Manifest block a
normative reference. But also the other extension blocks needs
references. If that can be informative references or needs to be
normative ones depends on and needs a detailed look on each. 

So BIB and BCB is simple to normatively reference and synchronization
of their publication is not an issue. 

Manifest I lack the view of in what status it is in. However, there are
no active WG draft on it? 

What are the status of the Data Label Block? 

I would think that making an informative reference and simply note that
they are reserved and future assignment needs to have matching purposes
with BPv6 as the name space is shared is way forward. 

4. Section 10. As discussed at meeting, there is a benefit in having
this docuemnt take over the registries that RFC 6255 defines to gather
the rules in one place and ensure that they are aligned. 

The rest of the changes appears fine to me. 

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund