Re: [Drip] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-drip-reqs-13

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Thanks a lot Stu! Will keep an eye out for the new rev.

Regards
Suresh

> On Jun 23, 2021, at 5:18 PM, Card, Stu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Good points, I will address them w/minor edits & then Reply to All w/pointer to new rev ASAP, thanks!
> 
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021, 5:07 PM Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
> 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-drip-reqs-??
> Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
> Review Date: 2021-06-22
> IETF LC End Date: 2021-06-07
> IESG Telechat date: 2021-07-01
> 
> Summary:
> 
> It is a very interesting problem space and this document provides a good
> overview along with the references.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> * The term RID is used to mean slightly different things in different locations
> of the document. One very obvious example is in this sentence in Page 6
> 
> "However, applications of RID beyond RID itself"
> 
> probably need to be clarified a bit
> 
> * Section 4.1.1.
> 
> -> The following sentence fragment in GEN-3 is confusing
> 
> "UAS ID is in a registry and identification of which one"
> 
> Suggest rewording to
> 
> "UAS ID is in a registry and identification of the registry"
> 
> if my understanding of the intent is correct.
> 
> -> GEN-6: Not sure if "Finger" is a obvious description of this requirement for
> somebody who has not read RFC742. Suggest rewording to something more broadly
> understandable (e.g. "User Information")
> 
> -> It feels like Section 4.1.2. might be better placed before 4.1.1. as it
> addressed some of the questions I had on the GEN-* requirements. The other
> rationale sections were fine either way, but it may make sense to describe the
> rationale consistently before the requirement.s
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 
>