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 <noreply@xxxxxxxx> 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 last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
