Subject: [dtn] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-27: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 14:09:06 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-27: 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-dtn-bpbis/

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

Thank you for addressing my Discuss (and comment) points!

Just a few final remarks on the -27 (no reply needed):

Section 4.1.5.1

   The second item of the array SHALL be the applicable CBOR
   representation of the scheme-specific part (SSP) of the EID, defined
   as noted in the URI scheme code number registry entry for the EID's
   URI scheme.

(nit?) Perhaps "as noted in the reference(s) for the URI scheme code
[...]", since the registry itself is unlikely to have those details.

Section 4.1.5.1.1

Standard ABNF is case-insensitive, so we do match (e.g.) "DtN:NoNE" with
this dtn-uri construction.
While this might in some formal sense be problematic since (IIRC) URI
schemes are case-sensitive, I don't think it's going to cause problems
in practice and don't recommend any changes.

Section 10.7

I assume that as part of the IANA processing, we will have this document
added as a reference for the updated "dtn" registration.  (Whether or
not that change is specifically mentioned in the final RFC is probably
not of great import.)