Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-16

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Joel,

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:17 PM Joel Halpern via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: 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-cellar-ffv1-16
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review Date: 2020-07-13
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-16
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary: This document appears to be ready for publication as an
> Informational
> RFC.
>
> *I would have raised question about the intended status, but it appears
> that
> this is an established IETF convention and I see no reason to argue.)
>
> Major issues:
>
> Minor issues:
>     Section 3.4 (Context) introduces the notation Q_{#}[ subscript }.  As
> that
>     is the first reference to Q_{#}, it is rather confusing to the
> reader.  I
>     grant that the term is defined in the next section (3.5).  Couldn't
> they be
>     reversed?
>
>     Section 3.8.1.1 refers to C(i), C_{i}, and C_i.  Are these all the same
>     thing.
>
>     Section 3.8.1.2 refers to get-rac (which is treated as a function in
> the
>     pseudo-code) as being the process described in section 3.8.1.1.  The
> text
>     in 3.8.1.1 does not call out any of its computed values as an explicit
>     result or return.  While I would guess that the intention is to use the
>     byte stream (B()), the text does not actually say that.  If that is the
>     intention, could the last line of 3.8.1.1 be "get_rac() returns
> sequential
>     bytes from the Byte Stream (B()) as computed by the computation
> described
>     in section 3.8.1.1"?
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>

Thanks for the review! We'll work through these comments.

Best,

Spencer