Hi Carsten,
Small nit. I had a quick read of the diff and although section 2 looks good with the new HTML and CSS, the formula looks mangled in the data tracker format ("present(fc) ⋅ 2").
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-core-senml-versions-03.txt
Ciao!
--
Jaime Jiménez
On Sun, May 9, 2021, at 10:51 PM, Carsten Bormann 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
