Last Call Review of draft-ietf-core-etch-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-core-etch
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2016-10-11
Requested 2016-08-24
Authors Peter Van der Stok, Carsten Bormann, Anuj Sehgal
Draft last updated 2016-09-12
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Phillip Hallam-Baker (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Sheng Jiang
State Completed
Review review-ietf-core-etch-02-opsdir-lc-jiang-2016-09-12
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 04)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2016-09-12


Hi, OPS-DIR, Authors,


I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent
 of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.


This Standards Track document defines a

new CoAP methods, FETCH, to perform the equivalent of a GET with a request body; and the twin methods PATCH and iPATCH, to modify parts of a CoAP resource.

 This document is well written. I don't see any major issues from the operations and management perspective. It is almost ready to be published. There are one of potential major (the word potential means I don’t really sure how serious it may be) comments from


In section 2.5, it raises an issue that “

 FETCH request cannot be generated from a link alone, but also needs a way to generate the request payload.” From the discussion text, I am not sure whether there are existing way to generate the request payload or not. And I am not sure whether the FECTCH
 method needs a standard such way to be able to work or not. If the answer for my first question is no, or the question for my second question is yes. Then we probably have an major issue here. I wish my suspecting is wrong.



Best regards,