Ballot for draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.
# Internet AD comments for {draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-15} CC @ekline ## Comments ### S3.5 * Should the "position of the field" be relative to something? ### S5 * The mailto: URI is slightly truncated. It seems like it should be "mailto:lp-wan@ietf.org" rather than "mailto:p-wan@ietf.org". * "Field Length : Either a positive integer of a function." doesn't quite parse easily for me. Perhaps: "Field Length : Either a positive integer or a CDA function."? ## Nits ### S3 * s/definied/defined/ * s/serveur/server/ ### S3.4 * s/giving in bits/given in bits/ ### S3.7 * s/contains a text/contains text/? ### S3.10.2 * s/field in optional/field is optional/ ### S3.10.5 * s/sould be/should be/
Nits: - s/serveur/server/ - I suggest "an informal" as a more idiomatic option where "a non formal" is used.
Question 20 on the shepherd writeup says there were no IANA actions here, but in fact there were two.
The -17 version addresses my discuss. Thanks! Old DISCUSS: Probably an easy thing to fix, I see an identity defined as "rcs-rfc8724". Using RFC numbers as names can be confusing if such and RFC is obsoleted for another RFC. Couldn't this entry be called "rcs-crc32" ? NITS: - Section 1 [I-D.ietf-lpwan-architecture] is a broken reference - Many sections contain [RFC8724] as a broken reference
Thank you to Carl Wallace for the SECDIR review. Thanks for addressing my feedback in -17 and -18. I leave to the WG if clarifying this is possible: ** Section 8. Therefore, the identity of the requester must be validated. This can be done through certificates or access lists. Is there a particular way which this should be done, or is it expected to follow NACM, and associated NETCONF and RESTCONF?
Thanks for working on the specification. I have found number of typos but those seems like well covered by Lars's comments.
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-15 CC @larseggert Thanks to Meral Shirazipour for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/RVzFMuO5DCPzLz7tJnYk9J9NEPk). ## Comments In general, the writing in this document is quite poor, making it often difficult to immediately understand the intended technical content. I wish the WG had spent some more efforts here before sending this forward for publication. ### Section 1, paragraph 4 ``` * ... ``` Should this placeholder be removed? ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Typos #### Section 3, paragraph 2 ``` - UDP[RFC0768], CoAP [RFC7252] including options definied for no - - ``` #### Section 3, paragraph 2 ``` - serveur response [RFC7967] and OSCORE [RFC8613]. For the latter - - ``` #### Section 3.7, paragraph 4 ``` - same enconding. - - ``` #### Section 3.10.1, paragraph 2 ``` - * No Ack: this mode is unidirectionnal, no acknowledgment is sent - - ``` #### Section 3.10.5, paragraph 4 ``` - recommends a duration of 12 hours. In fact, the value range sould be + recommends a duration of 12 hours. In fact, the value range should be + + ``` #### Section 3.10.5, paragraph 6 ``` - 1.0 sec and 19 hours covering [RFC9011] recommandation. - ^ + 1.0 sec and 19 hours covering [RFC9011] recommendation. + ^ ``` #### Section 4, paragraph 1 ``` - A rule is idenfied by a unique rule identifier (rule ID) comprising + A rule is identified by a unique rule identifier (rule ID) comprising + ++ ``` #### Section 4, paragraph 4 ``` - packet in extenso when no compression rule was found (see + packet in extension when no compression rule was found (see + + + ``` Or what else is "in extenso" supposed to mean? #### Section 4, paragraph 6 ``` - The YANG data model introduces repectively these three identities : - ------------ - ``` #### Section 4, paragraph 7 ``` - * nature-compresion + * nature-compression + + ``` #### Section 4.3, paragraph 123 ``` - Note that the smallest value is also the incrementation step, - ^^ ^^^^^ ^ - so the timer precision. - --- + Note that the smallest value is also the increment, i.e., + ^^ ^ ^ ``` #### Section 4.3, paragraph 127 ``` - occurences. + occurrences. + + ``` #### Section 4.3, paragraph 127 ``` - irrespective of its position of occurence in the + irrespective of its position of occurrence in the + + ``` #### Section 4.3, paragraph 127 ``` - direction (bi directionnal, only uplink, or only - ^ - + direction (bi-directional, only uplink, or only + ^ ``` #### Section 8, paragraph 5 ``` - The rule contains some sensible informations such as the application - ^ + The rule contains some sensible information, such as the application + ^ ``` ### Grammar/style #### "Table of Contents", paragraph 1 ``` ed network. [RFC8724] provides a non formal representation of the rules used ^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This expression is usually spelled with a hyphen. (Also elsewhere.) #### Section 3.5, paragraph 1 ``` ression Action). The index allows to specify several values: * For Equal and ^^^^^^^^^^ ``` Did you mean "specifying"? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, "allow" + "to" takes an object, usually a pronoun. #### Section 3.10.2, paragraph 3 ``` can include a tile. The parameters defines the behavior: * all-1-data-no: th ^^^^^^^ ``` You should probably use "define". #### Section 3.10.4, paragraph 5 ``` mer is disabled. [RFC8724] do not specified any range for these timers. [RFC9 ^^^^^^^^^ ``` After the auxiliary verb "do", use the base form of a verb. Did you mean "specify"? #### Section 3.10.5, paragraph 1 ``` C fragmentation protocol specifies the the number of attempts before aborting ^^^^^^^ ``` Possible typo: you repeated a word. #### Section 3.10.5, paragraph 4 ``` ket-size: defines the maximum size of a uncompressed datagram. By default, t ^ ``` Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. "an article", "an hour". #### Section 4.3, paragraph 2 ``` C 8724 describes compression rules in a abstract way through a table. |----- ^ ``` Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. "an article", "an hour". #### Section 4.3, paragraph 13 ``` ation address prefix of RFC 8200. Depending if it is respectively an uplink o ^^^^^^^^^ ``` The verb "depend" requires the preposition "on" (or "upon"). (Also elsewhere.) #### Section 4.3, paragraph 89 ``` t, index is 0. Otherwise, index is the the order in the matching list, starti ^^^^^^^ ``` Possible typo: you repeated a word. #### Section 4.3, paragraph 89 ``` description "Target Value content as a untyped binary value."; } reference " ^ ``` Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. "an article", "an hour". #### Section 4.3, paragraph 96 ``` tor, indicate if this field must be consider for rule selection or ignored ba ^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` There may an error in the verb form "be consider". #### Section 4.3, paragraph 96 ``` gnored based on the direction (bi-directional, only uplink, or only downlink ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This word is normally spelled as one. #### Section 4.3, paragraph 127 ``` siderations This document registers one URIs and one YANG modules. 7.1. URI R ^^^^^^^^ ``` Don't use the number "one" with plural words. Did you mean "one URI", "a URI", or simply "URIs"? ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool
Thanks for addressing my comments, I've cleared my discuss. I've put one further suggestion related to the descriptions/references in my email response.