Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-27

Request Review of draft-ietf-dots-data-channel
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 31)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-03-13
Requested 2019-02-27
Authors Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy.K
I-D last updated 2019-03-07
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -27 by Roni Even (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -27 by Brian Trammell (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dots-data-channel-27-genart-lc-even-2019-03-07
Reviewed revision 27 (document currently at 31)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2019-03-07
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-??
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2019-03-07
IETF LC End Date: 2019-03-13
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

The document is ready with nits and one minor issue for publication as a
standard track RFC

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1. In section 2 there is a discussion about conflicting filtering requests. I
think that this can be considered as an attack and should be mentioned in the
security section. I also think that such a conflict must be reported to the
administrator even if rejected.

Nits/editorial comments:

1. In figure 2 missing HTTP layer?
2. In section 6.1 "If the request is missing a mandatory attribute or its
contains " should be "it" instead of "its" 3. In section 7.3 "A DOTS client
periodically queries  ...".  I did not see any text about why this is done is
this a common behavior? how often? 4. After figure 29 "bound to a given ACL as
shown in Figure 28 " I think it should be 27? 5. In figure 31
""pending-lifetime": 8000 ," why 8000 and not 9080 as in figure 28?