Telechat Review of draft-ietf-mls-protocol-17
review-ietf-mls-protocol-17-intdir-telechat-krishnan-2023-01-30-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mls-protocol |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 20) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | Internet Area Directorate (intdir) | |
Deadline | 2023-01-28 | |
Requested | 2023-01-16 | |
Requested by | Éric Vyncke | |
Authors | Richard Barnes , Benjamin Beurdouche , Raphael Robert , Jon Millican , Emad Omara , Katriel Cohn-Gordon | |
I-D last updated | 2023-01-30 | |
Completed reviews |
Opsdir Early review of -16
by Bo Wu
(diff)
Tsvart Early review of -16 by Gorry Fairhurst (diff) Artart Early review of -16 by Rich Salz (diff) Intdir Telechat review of -17 by Suresh Krishnan (diff) |
|
Comments |
This protocol can be a game changer for many applications but also needs to work the current/future Internet. Thanks for your review. -éric |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Suresh Krishnan |
State | Completed Snapshot | |
Review |
review-ietf-mls-protocol-17-intdir-telechat-krishnan-2023-01-30
|
|
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/eqnTAAyycgmbE0M2bXvLdVIeaik | |
Reviewed revision | 17 (document currently at 20) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2023-01-30 |
review-ietf-mls-protocol-17-intdir-telechat-krishnan-2023-01-30-00
I am the assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-mls-protocol. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/. Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot a YES on this document. The document is well written and easy to understand. I did have one minor suggestion below (but please feel free to ignore) * Section 3 After trying to verify if the following minimum bits encoding check works if prefix >= 1 && v < (1 << (8*(1 << (prefix-1))-2)): raise Exception('minimum encoding was not used') I came up with a *slightly* easier to read equivalent with one less operation if prefix >= 1 && v < (1 << ((1 << (prefix+2))-2)): raise Exception('minimum encoding was not used') Since this does not affect interoperability in any way, please feel free to accept/reject this suggestion.