Subject: [Pals] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:16:46 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Benoit re: Jürgen's review.

I was also quite confused by:
" In order to get a locally unique session ID, the recommended choice is
to perform a CRC-16 giving as input the following data
       |Y|Y|M|M|D|D|H|H|M|M|S|S|L|L|L|

       Where:  YY: are the decimal two last digit of the current year
       MM: are the decimal two digit of the current month DD: are the
       decimal two digit of the current day HHMMSSLLL: are the decimal
       digits of the current time expressed in (hour, minutes, seconds,
       milliseconds) ... Any other method to
       generate a locally unique session ID is also acceptable."

Is the pipe character intended to mean concatenation? Or is it just for
formatting?
If the former, why isn't this "YY|MM|DD|HHMMSSLLL" (or
"YY|MM|DD|HH|MM|SS|LLL")?
Is this just CRC-16 (170410124223001)? An example would help...
Actually, this says that it is a "locally unique session ID" and that any
other method is also acceptable, so why is any algorithm specified?