On 9/14/22 1:42 AM, mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi Paul, Thank you for the review. All good points. You can track the changes to address your review at: https://tinyurl.com/dots-robust-latest
Looks good! Thanks, Paul
Cheers, Med-----Message d'origine----- De : Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Envoyé : mardi 13 septembre 2022 19:46 À : art@xxxxxxxx Cc : draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks.all@xxxxxxxx; last- call@xxxxxxxx; dots@xxxxxxxx Objet : Artart Last Call review of draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks- 04 Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned ARTART reviewer for this Internet-Draft. Document: draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks-04 Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat Review Date: 2022-09-13 IETF LC End Date: 2022-09-16 IESG Telechat date: ? Summary: Ready with Nits Issues: Major: 0 Minor: 0 Nits: 2 1) NIT: "Parameter" vs. "Attribute" Throughout the document the terms "Parameter" and "Attribute" are used more or less interchangeably. The term "Parameter" seems to be derived from RFCs 7252 and 9177 (e.g., in Table 1) and IIUC refers to abstract values without regard to how they are represented or transferred. Parameters are denoted by names in CAPITAL_LETTERS. The term "Attribute" seems to come from the definition of a DOTS signal channel in RFC 9132. Attributes are denoted by lower-case- hyphenated-names. I suggest it would be clearer to consistently use Parameter when discussing the former and Attribute when discussing the latter. (However, in the IANA registry table the column containing these "attributes" is labeled "Parameter Name", and so the template for the registry will have to refer to it that way. Unfortunate!) 2) NIT: Relation of Parameters and Attributes The Introduction ends with: ... Nevertheless, the attributes listed in Table 1 are not supported in [RFC9132]. This document defines new DOTS signal channel attributes that are used to customize the configuration of robust block transmission in a DOTS context. This seems to be the prime purpose of this document. Yet it fails to explicitly state the connection between the parameters listed in Table 1 and the "new DOTS signal channel attributes". I see that there is a 1:1 correspondence between the two, with the exception of NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM, which apparently need not transmitted because it is calculated. I think it would be helpful to state this explicitly here in the document. Perhaps: ... Nevertheless, the parameters listed in Table 1 are not supported in [RFC9132]. This document defines new DOTS signal channel attributes, corresponding to the parameters in Table 1, that are used to customize the configuration of robust block transmission in a DOTS context._________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
