Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-09
review-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-09-artart-lc-tiloca-2024-02-10-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 10) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
Deadline | 2024-02-12 | |
Requested | 2024-01-29 | |
Authors | Rick Taylor , Edward J. Birrane | |
I-D last updated | 2024-02-10 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -09
by Russ Housley
(diff)
Artart Last Call review of -09 by Marco Tiloca (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Tim Wicinski (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Marco Tiloca |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/tSps1P7qKqMa_hx1ynEDBQUqgUs | |
Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 10) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2024-02-10 |
review-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-09-artart-lc-tiloca-2024-02-10-00
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 ... [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, ..." [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, ..." [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. [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