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 <cabo@xxxxxxx> 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 <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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
