Hi Marco, Thank you for the review, comments inline... On 10/02/2024 09:58, Marco Tiloca via Datatracker wrote: > Reviewer: Marco Tiloca > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I reviewed this document as part of the Applications and Real-Time (ART) Area > Review Team's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by > the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the ART Area > Directors. Document authors, document editors, and WG Chairs should treat these > comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments. > > [Section 1] > > * "This document updates the specification" > > Consistent with the abstract, and in order to explicitly mention what > documents are updated and why, I suggest to refer again to RFC 7116 and RFC > 9171. For example: > > NEW > > By updating [RFC7116] and [RFC9171], this document updates the > specification ... Yeah, Russ Housley recommended a rewording of this as well. I will blend both your recommendations to improve the text. > > [Section 2] > > * "Every ipn URI, no matter the textual representation or binary encoding, ..." > > Perhaps do you mean the following? > > "Every ipn URI, no matter whether it is expressed with the textual > representation or the binary encoding, ..." +1 - Yes, that's better! > > [Section 3.2.1] > > * "... all ranges MUST be of a length that is a power of 2, and for given range > of length N bits, ..." > > This phrasing does not match with the values in the column "Range Length > (Bits)" of the following table, which of course do not have to be a power of > 2. > > I think you mean: > > "... all ranges MUST be of a size S that is a power of 2, and for a given > range of length N bits, with S = 2^N, ..." +1 - Yes we do. That's better text. We tried not to get too "math" but it's needed. > > [Section 3.2.2] > > * s/and assigned the/and by assigning the > > [Appendix B.2] > > * "ipn:977000.1.2" > > Should this not be ipn:977000.1.1 ? > > The first sentence in this section refers to Service Number 1. Let me double check, but I suspect you're right > > [Nits] > > * Section 1 > - s/Therefore the/Therefore, the > - s/that like most/that, like most > > * Section 2 > - s/document the term/document, the term > > * Section 3.2.1 > - s/for given range/for a given range > - s/B and any/B, and any > > * Section 3.3.1 > - s/In examples/In the examples > - s/e.g./e.g., > > * Section 4 > - s/in Appendix A (Appendix A)/in Appendix A > - s/i.e./i.e., > - s/an LocalNode ipn URI/a LocalNode ipn URI > - s/in Appendix B (Appendix B)/in Appendix B > > * Section 5.4 > - s/or BPv6 EID it is/or BPv6 EID, it is > > * Section 5.6 > - s/to by identified by/to be identified by > > * Section 6 > - s/is CBOR encoded/is encoded with CBOR [RFC8949] > > * Section 6.1 > - s/Appendix D (Appendix D)./Appendix D. > > * Section 7.2 > - s/where-by/whereby > > > All good catches! I have an updated draft with these changes I will push out today. Cheers, Rick -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
