[Scone] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-scone-protocol-08: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-scone-protocol-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-scone-protocol/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you to Thomas Fossati for the GENART review.

** Section 7.1.  Clarity of the pseudo-code

-- Line1: “is_long = packet[0] & 0x80 == 0x80”

Not knowing the operator precedence, should this be “is_long = (packet[0] &
0x80) == 0x80”?

-- Line2: “packet_version = ntohl(packet[1..5])”

Does packet[1..5] assume the bytes 1..5 inclusive making it a 5-bytes array? 
Doesn’t ntohl() typically take a 32-bit integer?

Should ntohl() be defined?

-- Line3: “if is_long and (packet_version & 0x7fffffff) == SCONE_VERSION_BITS:”

Same as Line1, should this be “(is_long and (packet_version & 0x7fffffff))”?

Where is SCONE_VERSION_BITS defined?

** Section 7.1
   Once the throughput advice is updated, the network element updates
   the UDP checksum for the datagram; see [RFC1141].

Why is RFC1624 not used instead of RFC1141?