Last Call Review of draft-kucherawy-rfc8478bis-03

Request Review of draft-kucherawy-rfc8478bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-01-17
Requested 2019-12-20
Authors Yann Collet, Murray Kucherawy
Draft last updated 2019-12-26
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Daniel Migault (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel Halpern 
State Completed
Review review-kucherawy-rfc8478bis-03-genart-lc-halpern-2019-12-26
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2019-12-26


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-rfc8478bis-03
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2019-12-26
IETF LC End Date: 2020-01-17
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This review primarily focused on the differences, which seem appropriate, from the RFC.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues: N/A

Nits/editorial comments:
    I presume that bits within a byte are still interpreted in the normal fashions since we do not work in terms of the serialization of bits on a wire, and in fact different wires may do it differently.  This does leave the question of how bit fields are interpreted when they describe bits within a byte.  Thus, I assume that the "last block" flag is the least significant bit of the first byte of the block header?  And Literals_Block_Type is the least significant two bits of the first byte of the Literals_Section_Header?  (I presume that the use of little-endian encoding is due to existing practice, and therefore presume it is what this needs to describe.)   Should this be stated more explicitly?