Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-drip-reqs-13
review-ietf-drip-reqs-13-genart-lc-krishnan-2021-06-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-drip-reqs
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2021-06-07
Requested 2021-05-24
Authors Stuart W. Card , Adam Wiethuechter , Robert Moskowitz , Andrei Gurtov
I-D last updated 2021-06-23
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -13 by Suresh Krishnan (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Nagendra Kumar Nainar (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Suresh Krishnan
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-drip-reqs by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/gJG5WkpS3oDExE5RXsrcLgdd1n4
Reviewed revision 13 (document currently at 18)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2021-06-23
review-ietf-drip-reqs-13-genart-lc-krishnan-2021-06-23-00
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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-drip-reqs-??
Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
Review Date: 2021-06-22
IETF LC End Date: 2021-06-07
IESG Telechat date: 2021-07-01

Summary:

It is a very interesting problem space and this document provides a good
overview along with the references.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

* The term RID is used to mean slightly different things in different locations
of the document. One very obvious example is in this sentence in Page 6

"However, applications of RID beyond RID itself"

probably need to be clarified a bit

* Section 4.1.1.

-> The following sentence fragment in GEN-3 is confusing

"UAS ID is in a registry and identification of which one"

Suggest rewording to

"UAS ID is in a registry and identification of the registry"

if my understanding of the intent is correct.

-> GEN-6: Not sure if "Finger" is a obvious description of this requirement for
somebody who has not read RFC742. Suggest rewording to something more broadly
understandable (e.g. "User Information")

-> It feels like Section 4.1.2. might be better placed before 4.1.1. as it
addressed some of the questions I had on the GEN-* requirements. The other
rationale sections were fine either way, but it may make sense to describe the
rationale consistently before the requirement.s

Nits/editorial comments: