Thanks Richard (and Martin)! I did see the PR and I agree it is a great way to do the check .
Cheers
Suresh
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@xxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 10:58 AM
To: Suresh Krishnan (sureshk) <sureshk@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: int-dir@xxxxxxxx <int-dir@xxxxxxxx>, draft-ietf-mls-protocol.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-mls-protocol.all@xxxxxxxx>, last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>, mls@xxxxxxxx <mls@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-mls-protocol-17
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:54 PM Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
Review result: Ready
I am the assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-mls-protocol.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just
like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more
details on the INT Directorate, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/.
Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot a YES on this
document. The document is well written and easy to understand. I did have
one minor suggestion below (but please feel free to ignore)
* Section 3
After trying to verify if the following minimum bits encoding check works
if prefix >= 1 && v < (1 << (8*(1 << (prefix-1))-2)):
raise Exception('minimum encoding was not used')
I came up with a *slightly* easier to read equivalent with one less operation
if prefix >= 1 && v < (1 << ((1 << (prefix+2))-2)):
raise Exception('minimum encoding was not used')
Since this does not affect interoperability in any way, please feel free to
accept/reject this suggestion.
|
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
