Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-kucherawy-dispatch-zstd-01

[Yann Collet <[e-mail]>]

Hi


I can answer the following 2 minor points: 

     - S2.1.1.3.1.1: "Value ?0" --> should it be "Value 00"?

`?0` means it can be either `10` or `00`.
Aka, only the last bit `0` matters.


    - S2.1.1: The value of the magic number: 0xFD2FB528 --- is there any significance to it?  

This value was selected to be less probable to find at the beginning of some random file.
It avoids trivial patterns (0x00, 0xFF, repeated bytes, increasing bytes, etc.),
contains byte values outside of ASCII range,
and doesn't map into UTF8 space.
It reduces chances that a text file be able to represent this value by accident.


For all other points, I have no comment, and agree with reviewer.


Rgds

Yann Collet
Facebook

On 4/19/18, 07:55, "Vijay Gurbani" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
    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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_gen_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwICaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_EwH5jTAHV32G13ENXwVrw&m=aMabi5qTp6wXqc6KXVjyGEgbdV5SaoN7tcHeDarFUI8&s=G_jKtEolxxcUUP2uN78WXkDdXi9KsGgZPh0RD34zvIw&e=>.
    
    Document: draft-kucherawy-dispatch-zstd-01
    Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
    Review Date: 2018-04-19
    IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-23
    IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
    
    Summary: Ready with 1 minor issue and some nits.
    
    Major issues: 0
    
    Minor issues: 2
     
    Nits/editorial comments:  3
    
    Minor:
    - S4: "... and the usual precautions apply."  Here, what are the "usual
     precautions"?  Are they the ones enumerated below?  If so, then
     perhaps restate as "... and the usual precautions apply, as enumerated
     below.".
    
     If the usual precautions are not enumerated below, then a reference should
     be provided to a resource(s) that enumerates such precautions.
    
    - S5: I am curious, why should we remove this section prior to publication?
     It contains pointers to code that is invaluable to implementors.  At the
     most, I would advise excising company name (Facebook) from the section,
     but I would advocate strongly to retain this section as the draft becomes
     a RFC.
    
    Nits/Typos:
    - S2.1.1: The value of the magic number: 0xFD2FB528 --- is there any
     significance to it?  Any insight on how you arrived at this will be
     interesting.  (I am relating this magic number to the SIP magic cookie
     "z9hG4bK" which was chosen so that the probability was very small of
     older implementations to randomly pick a branch ID that started with
     these characters.)
    
    - S2.1.1: s/the origina/the original/
    
    - S2.1.1.3.1.1: "Value ?0" --> should it be "Value 00"?