| Thank you for considering my comments! I’m keyboardless right more, but will have a look when I’m back next week. Sent from mobile, sorry for terse On 10. Sep 2024, at 23:36, Ben Rosenblum <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Carsten,Thank you for your review. Responses to your comments are inline below.Ben2.1.1.1 seems to presume a registry of valid Telemetry Source Object
types. I don't find that in the IANA considerations.
(The one "type" value that seems to be defined is spelled both as
"Generic" [once] and "generic" [four times], the latter being used in
the example in 2.1.2.)
"Additional limits would need to be specified and extended into this
list." -- Similar to 2.2.1.1, i.e., also looks like a candidate for a
registry: unless it is foreseen that this list will only be extended
by an RFC updating this RFC.
After discussion, we'll be adding a registry for the Telemetry types. This will require one more revision.## Minor
1.3 starts with a sentence stating "... has been defined".
It this a recap of something that happened somewhere else?
If yes, please state this and add references.
That sentence ends with a colon and refers to the text below it.2.1.1.1: I can't parse
The intention of
this type registry is to allow for to reference a to another
specification,
This is resolved in revision 07.2.1.1.2: time-granularity probably is intended to be at least
non-negative, likely positive
2.2.1.1: I would expect these all are non-negative integers?
(The specification says just "integer").
This is resolved in revision 07.## Nits
### general
Please aid the reader by using section references for passages such as
"Section 5 of [RFC8008]".
This is resolved in revision 07.The examples are labeled as "artwork" in the XML; they should be
sourcecode (probably labeled "json", even if they only contain the
syntax for a single member of a JSON object).
This is resolved in revision 07.The tables could use titles for the captions.
This got missed for revision 07. I'm not sure how to specify the title as they are not present in the XML and were generated automatically.### Section 3.1
The IANA registration text could mention the name of the registry
group (Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Parameters).
This is resolved in revision 07.### typos
1.3: amount of traffic may be delegated
➔ amount of traffic that may be delegated
This is resolved in revision 07.long lived
➔ long-lived
This is resolved in revision 07.datasource
➔ data source
This is resolved in revision 07.2.2.1.2 source of an Telemetry Capability
an ➔ a
This is resolved in revision 07.3.1.1, 3.1.2:
section Section
➔ section
This is resolved in revision 07. == Unused Reference: 'RFC7336' is defined on line 637, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC8007' is defined on line 647, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC8804' is defined on line 652, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
This is resolved in revision 07.
|
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
