Subject: [lp-wan] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-15: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 00:12:24 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-15: 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-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc/

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

Abstract:

OLD:
   This draft defines the way Static Context Header Compression (SCHC)
   header compression can be applied to the Constrained Application
   Protocol (CoAP). [...]
NEW:
   This draft defines the way Static Context Header Compression (SCHC)
   can be applied to the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP). [...]

Generally, "SCHC header compression" everywhere beyond the Abstract seems
redundant to me and can be replaced with just "SCHC".

Section 1:

* The text here introduces several terms with curious capitalization, such as
"End-to-End" and "Rules".  If they have special meaning, they should be
explicitly defined somewhere, otherwise I suggest just leaving them all
lowercase.

* "... some bits to be sent, these values are ..." -- comma splice; start a new
sentence here

* "... applied to different protocols, the exact Rules to be used ..." -- same

Section 2:

* "... defined in [rfc8724] document." -- remove "document"

Section 3.1:

* "The field Code have as well the same behavior, the 0.0X code format value in
the request and Y.ZZ code format in the response." -- I'm afraid I don't
understand this.

Section 4.3:

* "The code field indicates the Request Method used in CoAP, a IANA registry
[rfc7252]." -- I can't parse this.  Does that mean the code field's possible
values are listed in an IANA registry?  Which one?

Section 4.4:

* "... and the Least Significant Bits (LSB) CDA, see section ..." -- the stuff
after the comma should be parenthesized instead; there are several instances of
this in the document