Early Review of draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05
review-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05-iotdir-early-sethi-2021-07-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Early Review
Team Internet of Things Directorate (iotdir)
Deadline 2021-07-29
Requested 2021-07-16
Requested by Christian Amsüss
Authors Michael Richardson , Carsten Bormann
I-D last updated 2021-07-26
Completed reviews Iotdir Early review of -05 by Mohit Sethi (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -05 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -09 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Comments 
For OpsDir, one question here is whether the terminology for prefixes and address-with-prefix is right. For both (but especially IoTdir), this is also about dissemination and possibly pulling in references to cases where this would be (or could have been) useful.
Assignment Reviewer Mohit Sethi
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses by Internet of Things Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/J0QdA3PS6vYIhAZWmVSsquJnh30
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 13)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2021-07-26
review-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05-iotdir-early-sethi-2021-07-26-00
In the abstract, perhaps "describes" could be "specifies"/"defines"?

It might make sense to provide references to the definition of tags 260  and
261. I had to look them up.

"was removed in this specification" -> "is removed in this specification"?

"When applied to an array that starts with a number"? Is 'number' the correct
terminology? I confused it with the tag number?

What would happen to tags 260 and 261. Are they now discouraged/forbidden? Are
they meant to co-exist with 52 and 54?