[dtn] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-29: (with COMMENT)

[Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-29: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

Thank you for this document.

Just a few minor observations/comments.  Quite possibly only the last comment
is actionable, and the rest are just observations.

1) Figure 2: Components of a Bundle Node

It would be nice if this diagram is not split across page boundaries, hopefully
the RFC editor can sort this out.

2) 4. Bundle Format

   Each bundle SHALL be a concatenated sequence of at least two blocks,
   represented as a CBOR indefinite-length array

It wasn't immediate obvious why this restriction was here, I presume that this
is to ensure that there is a canonical representation?

4.1.1. CRC Type
I was surprised to see that CRC-16 is also supported.  I presume that reasoning
for this is because blocks could be small, and hence the overhead from always
using CRC32 was regarded as being too much?

4.1.2. CRC
I was also slightly surprised that these are encoded as fixed length byte
strings rather than as unsigned integers.  I presume that this is done to make
them fixed length and also easier to zero out when performing the CRC
calculation?

It looks like RFC 2119 language used to define the bundle format both in
section 4 and 4.2.1.  Possibly it would be better to not use RFC 2119 language
in the intro of section 4, and instead refer to 4.2.1 for the normative
definition?

Regards,
Rob