Subject: [lp-wan] comments on draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-04

From: ivaylo petrov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 11:25:42 -0400

Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-04. It was
mostly an informative and pleasant read. I have one general comment and a
few comments on the text.

General comments:
- In a number of places it is stated that something must not be
bidirectional (for example the beginning of sec 5.1). While I see why in
most cases it should not be bidirectional, I am not sure a must is the best
word here.

Comments:
- On page 6 - "*During that period, a server receiving the same Message ID
value will process the message has a retransmission." *should maybe be
"During that period, a server receiving the same Message ID value will
process the message as a retransmission. "
- On page 7 - "*If not **the possible, the value as to be sent as a residue
(fixed or variable length).*" maybe should be "*If not possible, the value
as to be sent as a residue (fixed or variable length).*"
- On page 8 - I think it will be useful to provide more information how
Uri-Path can be regrouped.
- On page 9, sec 5.5 I think it will be useful to state why those fields
can not be compressed.
- On page 12, figure 5 - you have two times CoAP version.

Please note that I didn't review in details the part for OSCORE.

Best regards,
--
Ivaylo Petrov
Chief Architect
ivaylo at ackl.io

www.ackl.io

1137A avenue des Champs Blancs,
35510 Cesson Sévigné
FRANCE

Phone: +33 (0)2 22 06 05 77

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the
contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the
information in any medium. Thank you!

---

From: Laurent Toutain <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 16:10:10 -0400

Hi Ivaylo,

Thanks for your comments, here is some answers. See inline:

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:26 AM ivaylo petrov <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dear authors,
>
> Thank you for submitting draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-04. It
> was mostly an informative and pleasant read. I have one general comment and
> a few comments on the text.
>
> General comments:

Yes you are right, The rule is more generic than what you get in a specific
flow. It is also the case in some other part, we will modify it.

>
> Comments:
> - On page 6 - "*During that period, a server receiving the same Message
> ID value will process the message has a retransmission." *should maybe be
> - On page 7 - "*If not **the possible, the value as to be sent as a
> residue (fixed or variable length).*" maybe should be "*If not possible,
> the value as to be sent as a residue (fixed or variable length).*"
>

ok

> Uri-Path can be regrouped.

ok,

> - On page 9, sec 5.5 I think it will be useful to state why those fields

ETag, If-Match, If-None-Match, include a hash value which can be difficult
to include into a TV in a rule.
Same thing for Location-Path and Location-Query. In my understanding they
are generated by the server
after a POST. Here the must is also too strong.

thanks,

> Please note that I didn't review in details the part for OSCORE.

Laurent

---

From: ivaylo petrov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 11:32:58 -0400

Hello Laurent,

Thank you for the swift reply!

For the last point - about ETag, etc, it makes perfect sense now. I think
it will be very useful if such an explanation could be included in the text.

Best regards,

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:10 PM Laurent Toutain <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Yes you are right, The rule is more generic than what you get in a
> specific flow. It is also the case in some other part, we will modify it.
>
>
>>
>> Comments:
>> ID value will process the message has a retransmission." *should maybe
>> be "During that period, a server receiving the same Message ID value will