Pete, thank you for your review and thank you all for the following discussion. I have entered a Discuss ballot for this document based on my own review. Lars On 2021-4-25, at 0:33, Pete Resnick via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > Review result: Ready with Issues > > 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-new-block-10 > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > Review Date: 2021-04-24 > IETF LC End Date: 2021-04-28 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > > The document looks pretty solid to me. There is one item I marked as a minor > "issue", but it may simply be an editorial item that confused me; I figured I'd > call it an issue just in case so it doesn't get left to the last minute to look > at. > > Do note that I have not reviewed the examples for correctness; I simply don't > have the expertise to be convinced I'd do it right. > > Major issues: > > None. > > Minor issues: > > In section 4.4: > > I find this paragraph confusing: > > The requested missing block numbers MUST have an increasing block > number in each additional Q-Block2 Option with no duplicates. The > server SHOULD respond with a 4.00 (Bad Request) to requests not > adhering to this behavior. > > So, given the SHOULD in the second sentence, it appears that the MUST in the > first sentence doesn't apply to the server (i.e., to enforce this), but rather > to the client doing the request. You should probably say it that way. Also, the > SHOULD in the second sentence is not entirely clear to me: Are you saying that > the server can choose to use some other response code, or are you saying that > the server can accept the request and do something interesting with it? Below > is an attempt to fix it, but might not be correct depending on what you mean: > > The client MUST use an increasing block number in each additional > Q-Block2 Option when requesting missing block numbers, and MUST > request no duplicates. The server MUST reject requests not adhering > to this behavior and SHOULD respond with a 4.00 (Bad Request) to such > requests. > > There are other places in the document that use MUST with regard to what needs > to be in a piece of data (see for example sections 4.5 and 4.6), but don't make > it clear who is responsible for enforcing that MUST (the client or the server). > You should read through the entire document for MUSTs (or SHOULDs) like that > and make sure it's clear from the context. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > In section 4.3: > > In several response code definitions: > > The token used MUST be any token that was received in a request using > the same Request-Tag. > > That doesn't really parse well. I think you either mean "The token used MUST be > a token" or you mean "The token used can be any token". > > Specific response codes: > > 4.00 (Bad Request) > > This Response Code MUST be returned if the request does not > include neither a Request-Tag Option nor a Size1 Option but does > include a Q-Block1 option. > > Either change "neither...nor" to "either or", or change "does not include" to > "includes". > > 4.02 (Bad Option) > > Either this Response Code (in case of Confirmable request) or a > reset message (in case of Non-confirmable request) MUST be > returned if the server does not support the Q-Block Options. > > That sort of buries a MUST requirement for the Non-confirmable case inside this > requirement for a Response Code. I suggest instead: > > This Response Code MUST be returned for a Confirmable request if > the server does not support the Q-Block Options. (A reset message > is sent in case of Non-confirmable request.) > > In section 4.4: > > The passive here is not great form, particularly because it doesn't name the > actor: > > It is permissible to set the M bit to request this... > > How about instead: > > The client MAY set the M bit to request this... > > Maybe that's obvious, since the client does the requesting, but I think the > non-passive form is easier to read. > > In the second to last paragraph: > > If the server transmits a new body of data (e.g., a triggered Observe > notification) with a new ETag to the same client as an additional > response, the client should remove any partially received body held > for a previous ETag for that resource as it is unlikely the missing > blocks can be retrieved. > > I'm ambivalent about whether that "should" ought to be uppercased, but I just > wanted to make sure you intended the lowercase. > > In section 7.2: > > For the server receiving NON Q-Block1 requests, it SHOULD send back a > 2.31 (Continue) Response Code on receipt of all of the MAX_PAYLOADS > payloads to prevent the client unnecessarily delaying. Otherwise... > > When you say "Otherwise", Do you mean, "For other payloads"? Either way, you > should probably change that to make it clear. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
