Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-core-senml-data-ct-04

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Mon, 20 September 2021 12:09 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823713A10BC; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 05:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a5qKtO0DEm1L; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 05:09:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9931D3A10C0; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 05:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:e984:671f:78cf:fcd1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1A3B9600639; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:09:34 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1632139774; bh=v0lkOIEp/Mhx2DVr1mjrBbCAFZjcsgAyCAeSXD74mKI=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=az8ec7lrgLyPnv9dFk6nyrLg2rka/5qM3Nke32wIiyabbB+q9W6vvsv/nbb4NqTfp YJSdMz4xI/Tm9FOvNkLLFRZiyEWT7ItBXabPO/n8215UaVywE/LQXTjaL5sHymKDwT A+ikALTTmEvMnMvH47rwJ857S2KmAyRZCAF+TkkI=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <C49324F2-1EB6-412C-A448-911D5839BFAC@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AD1292A5-2DC5-4AED-B336-897B55A5CF83"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:09:33 +0300
In-Reply-To: <163092350360.5169.1299765677300317336@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-core-senml-data-ct.all@ietf.org, core@ietf.org
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <163092350360.5169.1299765677300317336@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: 1A3B9600639.A629F
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/3dCaK23a7zYJCLENN2sSsbABkzk>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-core-senml-data-ct-04
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 12:09:58 -0000

Christer, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document.

Lars


> On 2021-9-6, at 13:18, Christer Holmberg via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-core-senml-data-ct-04
> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> Review Date: 2021-09-06
> IETF LC End Date: 2021-09-06
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: I have reviewed the document. I have one technical comment, but the
> rest is mostly editorial. Related to that, I do think the document could use
> some editorial clean-up, e.g., when it comes to consistent terminology. I think
> it is also good not to assume that the reader knows CoAP, and to make sure the
> appropriate references/explanations are present when CoAP is referred to.
> 
> Major issues: N/A
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Q1 (TECHNICAL):
> 
> What happens if the receiver does not support the "ct" value? Is it a
> server-error? If so, what response code is used? I think that should be
> specified.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Q2 (EDITORIAL):
> 
> The text should use consistent terminology. See below for a few examples:
> 
> The Abstract says:
> 
>   "The Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML) media type supports multiple
>   types of values, from numbers to text strings and arbitrary binary
>   data values.  In order to simplify processing of the data values,
>   this document proposes to specify a new SenML field for indicating
>   the Content-Format of the data."
> 
> First the text talks about types of values, and then suddenly the
> Content-Format of the data.
> 
> Content-Format is the name of the new field - that is not what you are
> indicating. You are using the new field to indicate something.
> 
> Also, "Content-Format" is also used by CoAP, so please check that it is clear
> what is referred to whenever mentioned.
> 
> The text in Section 1 says:
> 
>   "To facilitate automatic interpretation it is useful to be able to
>   indicate an Internet media type and content-coding right in the SenML
>   Record."
> 
> ...and, the test in Section 7 says:
> 
> "The indication of a media type in the data does not exempt a consuming
> application from properly checking its inputs."
> 
> Now the text suddenly talks about "an Internet media type and content-coding",
> when it earlier (in the Abstract) talked about value of type.
> 
> Q3 (EDITORIAL):
> 
> The text says:
> 
> "The CoAP Content-Format (Section 12.3 of [RFC7252]) provides just this
> information"
> 
> I think it would be good with a little introduction on how CoAP is related to
> all this.
> 
> Also "provides just this information" probably needs some re-wording.
> 
> Q4 (EDITORIAL):
> 
> Section 6 contains the ABNF for the new fields.
> 
> Is there a reason you don't define them in the same way as the basic field is
> defined in RFC 8428 (there is no ABNF)?
> 
> Q5 (EDITORIAL):
> 
> The text in Section 7 says:
> 
> "The indication of a media type in the data does not exempt a consuming
> application from properly checking its inputs."
> 
> I assume that by "its inputs" you refer to "received SenML data".
> 
> Shouldn't properly checking inputs be a generic CoAP security consideration?
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art