Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-09
review-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-09-artart-lc-tiloca-2024-02-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2024-02-12
Requested 2024-01-29
Authors Rick Taylor , Edward J. Birrane
I-D last updated 2024-02-10
Completed reviews Artart Telechat review of -11 by Marco Tiloca
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Russ Housley (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -11 by Jean-Michel Combes
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Russ Housley
Artart Last Call review of -09 by Marco Tiloca (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Marco Tiloca
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/tSps1P7qKqMa_hx1ynEDBQUqgUs
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 11)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2024-02-10
review-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-09-artart-lc-tiloca-2024-02-10-00
I reviewed this document as part of the Applications and Real-Time (ART) Area
Review Team's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by
the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the ART Area
Directors. Document authors, document editors, and WG Chairs should treat these
comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments.

[Section 1]

* "This document updates the specification"

   Consistent with the abstract, and in order to explicitly mention what
   documents are updated and why, I suggest to refer again to RFC 7116 and RFC
   9171. For example:

   NEW
   > By updating [RFC7116] and [RFC9171], this document updates the
   specification ...

[Section 2]

* "Every ipn URI, no matter the textual representation or binary encoding, ..."

  Perhaps do you mean the following?

  "Every ipn URI, no matter whether it is expressed with the textual
  representation or the binary encoding, ..."

[Section 3.2.1]

* "... all ranges MUST be of a length that is a power of 2, and for given range
of length N bits, ..."

   This phrasing does not match with the values in the column "Range Length
   (Bits)" of the following table, which of course do not have to be a power of
   2.

   I think you mean:

   "... all ranges MUST be of a size S that is a power of 2, and for a given
   range of length N bits, with S = 2^N, ..."

[Section 3.2.2]

* s/and assigned the/and by assigning the

[Appendix B.2]

* "ipn:977000.1.2"

   Should this not be ipn:977000.1.1 ?

   The first sentence in this section refers to Service Number 1.

[Nits]

* Section 1
- s/Therefore the/Therefore, the
- s/that like most/that, like most

* Section 2
- s/document the term/document, the term

* Section 3.2.1
- s/for given range/for a given range
- s/B and any/B, and any

* Section 3.3.1
- s/In examples/In the examples
- s/e.g./e.g.,

* Section 4
- s/in Appendix A (Appendix A)/in Appendix A
- s/i.e./i.e.,
- s/an LocalNode ipn URI/a LocalNode ipn URI
- s/in Appendix B (Appendix B)/in Appendix B

* Section 5.4
- s/or BPv6 EID it is/or BPv6 EID, it is

* Section 5.6
- s/to by identified by/to be identified by

* Section 6
- s/is CBOR encoded/is encoded with CBOR [RFC8949]

* Section 6.1
- s/Appendix D (Appendix D)./Appendix D.

* Section 7.2
- s/where-by/whereby