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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi Elwyn,

have you had a chance to check whether the -03 version of the I-D addresses your review?

Thanks,
Lars


On 2021-5-9, at 22:51, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> 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?
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> --
> last-call mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call