Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-core-senml-versions-02

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Elwyn,

I finally got around to process your review.

I have submitted a new version -03 based on this review.
I could make direct use of your text suggestions, but did edit them a little.
So you may want to have another look at the second paragraph of 1 (introduction) and the new section 2.2, which address your main points.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-senml-versions/
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-core-senml-versions-03.html
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-core-senml-versions-03.txt

That was a great, thoughtful review.
Thanks again!

CoRE WG: Please also check the above documents and diffs!

Grüße, Carsten


> On 2021-05-03, at 20:56, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review result: Almost Ready
> 
> 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-versions-02
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review Date: 2021-05-03
> IETF LC End Date: 2021-05-03
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:  Almost ready.  There is one issue that needs to be sorted out.  This
> document removes the ordering relationship between the values of version..
> Section 4.4 of RFC 8428 relies on that ordering relationahip.  Accordingly
> there needs to be explicit new text for Section 4.4 in this document.  Also the
> concept of 'must understand' items is used in this document but is not
> explicitly defined in RFC 8428.  This needs to be fixed - which could happen in
> the new version of Setion 4.4.
> 
> Major issues:
> None
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> The redefinition of version means that this document should contain an explicit
> update of (at least)  paragraph 3 of Section 4.4 of RFC 8428,  That section
> assumes that there is an ordering relationship between version field values
> which is invalidated by this document.
> 
> Also the concept of 'must understand' fields is supposed to be explained in
> that section as well as discussed in s2.1 of this document.  That term is not
> explicitly used in RFC 8428 but I take it that it is supposed to refer to field
> names ending wth an underscore character ('_').  This should be fixed with a
> rewrite of s4.4 of RFC 8428.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> General:  The RFC Editor preferes the US convention for quoting items using
> exclusively singe quote rather than double quote marks.
> 
> s1, para 2:  I found this paragraph difficult to parse, especially the second
> sentence.  Here is an alternative suggestion. OLD: The traditional idea of
> using a version number for evolving an interchange format presupposes a linear
> progression of that format. A more likely form of evolution of SenML is the
> addition of independently selectable _features_ that can be added to the base
> version (version 10) in a fashion that these are mostly independent of each
> other. A recipient of a SenML pack can check the features it implements against
> those required by the pack, processing the pack only if all required features
> are provided in the implementation. NEW: The traditional idea of using a
> version number to indicate the evolution of an interchage format generally
> assmes an incremental progression of the version number as the format develops
> over time. However in the case of SenML it is expected that the likely
> evolution mechanism will be for independently selectable capabiity _features_
> to be added to the basic system indicated by 'version' 10. To support this
> model, this document repurposes the single version number accompanying a pack
> of SenML records so that it is interpreted as a bitmap indicating the set of
> features a recipient would need to have implemented to be able to process the
> pack. ENDS
> 
> s2:  Personally I would have used the left shift operator rather then 2^fc but
> that is a personal view.
> 
> s2,1, para 2: s/lower-most bit positions Section 3./least significant bit
> positions for the base version as described in Section 3./
> 
> s2.1, para 2:  s/Section 4/by the feature defined in Section 4/
> 
> s2.1, para 2: 'boutique' is slang:  s/boutique/less generally applicable/
> 
> s3: s/already/effectively already/
> 
> s6:  I am not we really care but are feature names case sensitve?
> 
> 
>