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

[Jaime Jiménez <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carsten, 

Small nit. I had a quick read of the diff and although section 2 looks good with the new HTML and CSS, the formula looks mangled in the data tracker format ("present(fc) ⋅ 2").

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-core-senml-versions-03.txt

Ciao!
-- 
Jaime Jiménez

On Sun, May 9, 2021, at 10:51 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> 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?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>