Subject: [homenet] A few more DNCP nits

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:04:56 +0200

Authors,

We have reviewed your changes (just the diffs). Thank you for your efforts
and the quick response to WGLC comments. We found a few nits of our own,
would you mind including these in a quick -05 update? We will then hand
this off to the ADs their review, IETF last call, and IESG review.

Thanks,

- Mark and Ray

Terminology section - please delineate the terms from the definition. e.g.,

DNCP Profile: is a definition...

We found the use of ()'s confusing. e.g., Effective (trust) verdict.. are
the ()'s necessary?

"Something with data about most recent request(s) for network state -
simplest one being a timestamp for the most recent request for network
state (see Section 5.2)."

What is this something? This seems ambiguously worded.

Section 4, and perhaps elsewhere in the doc now, suffers from a lack of
delineation between the term being defined and the definition. What you had
before was better in our view (with the articles, "A", "An", "The"...), but
we are fine with you removing them if you make the terms stand out
separately.

Rather than "Zeroed", can we say something like "Padding (of value zero)
... "

Also, rather than "These padding bytes MUST NOT be included in the length
field." .. Of course you mean that the padding bytes must not contributed
to the length field, or included in the calculation of the length field.
But, that's not what the sentence actually says.

Just above section 7.2, the pipe symbol used in the ascii art is in the
wrong spot (16.5 rather than 16).

Also, spurious "with" just before 7.2:

"for the node with matching node"

---

From: Steven Barth <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:55:00 +0200

Thanks for the review.

We just submitted https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-05
and hope this versions addresses the remaining issues.

Cheers,

Steven

On 02.06.2015 12:04, Mark Townsley wrote:
> 
> Authors,
> 
> We have reviewed your changes (just the diffs). Thank you for your
> efforts and the quick response to WGLC comments. We found a few nits of
> our own, would you mind including these in a quick -05 update? We will
> then hand this off to the ADs their review, IETF last call, and IESG review.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Mark and Ray
> 
> We found the use of ()'s confusing. e.g., Effective (trust) verdict..
> are the ()'s necessary?
> 
> delineation between the term being defined and the definition. What you
> had before was better in our view (with the articles, "A", "An",
> "The"...), but we are fine with you removing them if you make the terms
> stand out separately. 
> 
> Also, rather than "These padding bytes MUST NOT beincluded in the length
> field." .. Of course you mean that the padding bytes must not
> contributed to the length field, or included in the calculation of the
> length field. But, that's not what the sentence actually says. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>