Telechat Review of draft-ietf-core-http-mapping-17
review-ietf-core-http-mapping-17-opsdir-telechat-hares-2016-12-24-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-core-http-mapping
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Telechat Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2016-12-13
Requested 2016-12-02
Authors Angelo Castellani, Salvatore Loreto, Akbar Rahman, Thomas Fossati, Esko Dijk
Draft last updated 2016-12-24
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -12 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -14 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -15 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Dacheng Zhang (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Menachem Dodge (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -17 by Dacheng Zhang
Opsdir Telechat review of -17 by Susan Hares
Assignment Reviewer Susan Hares
State Completed
Review review-ietf-core-http-mapping-17-opsdir-telechat-hares-2016-12-24
Reviewed rev. 17
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2016-12-24

Review
review-ietf-core-http-mapping-17-opsdir-telechat-hares-2016-12-24

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.

 

Status:  Ready with 2 minor comments + 1 editorial nit

 

Caveat:  I am not a expert in HTTP or COAP.

 

General Comment: Thank you for an easily readable document for the newbie to CoAP.    Here’s a few positive things about this document:

 

1)      The examples are easily read and easy to follow for the newbie.

2)      The security section references earlier work in RFC7252 (CoAP base) protocol and builds on it for this one.

3)      This document really helps build the proxy from ground up  (Appendix A is useful)

 

 

Minor comment:

1)      Do  you differentiate between Multicast or ANYCAST service?  Many of the multicast services may be useful in the ANYCAST, but there may be some differences.   If this basic link between Multicast references and ANYCAST is made in an earlier document, please bring this forth in the definition section.  If not, it would be good to indicate.

 

2)      The requirements for the security constrained environment in the home sensors or private network sensors is dealt with.  However, I am not sure that you have covered all the pervasive privacy issues.  A security reviewer may provide better feedback, but it is important to be able to provide a specific section that deals with both the security and operational aspects in section 10.

 

Editorial nit

 

Section 6.2.5 of RFC7230 does not exist.  Section 8.5 should correct the reference.  My guess was 6.5 was the right section.

 

Finally – I am grateful to OPS-DIR For assignment this document to review. It has opened my eyes to new technology that I will utilize in some of my work.

 

Sue Hares