Last Call Review of draft-kucherawy-dispatch-zstd-01

Request Review of draft-kucherawy-dispatch-zstd
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-04-23
Requested 2018-03-26
Authors Yann Collet, Murray Kucherawy
Draft last updated 2018-04-19
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Scott Kelly (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Susan Hares (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -01 by Vijay Gurbani (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vijay Gurbani
State Completed
Review review-kucherawy-dispatch-zstd-01-genart-lc-gurbani-2018-04-19
Reviewed rev. 01 (document currently at 03)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2018-04-19


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-kucherawy-dispatch-zstd-01
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 2018-04-19
IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-23
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready with 1 minor issue and some nits.

Major issues: 0

Minor issues: 2
Nits/editorial comments:  3

- S4: "... and the usual precautions apply."  Here, what are the "usual
 precautions"?  Are they the ones enumerated below?  If so, then
 perhaps restate as "... and the usual precautions apply, as enumerated

 If the usual precautions are not enumerated below, then a reference should
 be provided to a resource(s) that enumerates such precautions.

- S5: I am curious, why should we remove this section prior to publication?
 It contains pointers to code that is invaluable to implementors.  At the
 most, I would advise excising company name (Facebook) from the section,
 but I would advocate strongly to retain this section as the draft becomes
 a RFC.

- S2.1.1: The value of the magic number: 0xFD2FB528 --- is there any
 significance to it?  Any insight on how you arrived at this will be
 interesting.  (I am relating this magic number to the SIP magic cookie
 "z9hG4bK" which was chosen so that the probability was very small of
 older implementations to randomly pick a branch ID that started with
 these characters.)

- S2.1.1: s/the origina/the original/

- S2. "Value ?0" --> should it be "Value 00"?