Christer, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Lars > On 2021-9-6, at 13:18, Christer Holmberg via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > 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>. > > Document: draft-ietf-core-senml-data-ct-04 > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > Review Date: 2021-09-06 > IETF LC End Date: 2021-09-06 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: I have reviewed the document. I have one technical comment, but the > rest is mostly editorial. Related to that, I do think the document could use > some editorial clean-up, e.g., when it comes to consistent terminology. I think > it is also good not to assume that the reader knows CoAP, and to make sure the > appropriate references/explanations are present when CoAP is referred to. > > Major issues: N/A > > Minor issues: > > Q1 (TECHNICAL): > > What happens if the receiver does not support the "ct" value? Is it a > server-error? If so, what response code is used? I think that should be > specified. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Q2 (EDITORIAL): > > The text should use consistent terminology. See below for a few examples: > > The Abstract says: > > "The Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML) media type supports multiple > types of values, from numbers to text strings and arbitrary binary > data values. In order to simplify processing of the data values, > this document proposes to specify a new SenML field for indicating > the Content-Format of the data." > > First the text talks about types of values, and then suddenly the > Content-Format of the data. > > Content-Format is the name of the new field - that is not what you are > indicating. You are using the new field to indicate something. > > Also, "Content-Format" is also used by CoAP, so please check that it is clear > what is referred to whenever mentioned. > > The text in Section 1 says: > > "To facilitate automatic interpretation it is useful to be able to > indicate an Internet media type and content-coding right in the SenML > Record." > > ...and, the test in Section 7 says: > > "The indication of a media type in the data does not exempt a consuming > application from properly checking its inputs." > > Now the text suddenly talks about "an Internet media type and content-coding", > when it earlier (in the Abstract) talked about value of type. > > Q3 (EDITORIAL): > > The text says: > > "The CoAP Content-Format (Section 12.3 of [RFC7252]) provides just this > information" > > I think it would be good with a little introduction on how CoAP is related to > all this. > > Also "provides just this information" probably needs some re-wording. > > Q4 (EDITORIAL): > > Section 6 contains the ABNF for the new fields. > > Is there a reason you don't define them in the same way as the basic field is > defined in RFC 8428 (there is no ABNF)? > > Q5 (EDITORIAL): > > The text in Section 7 says: > > "The indication of a media type in the data does not exempt a consuming > application from properly checking its inputs." > > I assume that by "its inputs" you refer to "received SenML data". > > Shouldn't properly checking inputs be a generic CoAP security consideration? > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
