Subject: [lp-wan] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 03:46:28 -0700

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-13: Discuss

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Ben's first 2 DISCUSS points.

**********************************************************************
* Note, that I am conducting an experiment when people aspiring to be*
* Area Directors get exposed to AD work ("AD shadowing experiment"). *
* As a part of this experiment they get to review documents on IESG  *
* telechats according to IESG Discuss criteria document and their    *
* comments get relayed pretty much verbatim to relevant editors/WGs. *
* As an AD I retain responsibility in defending their position when  *
* I agree with it.                                                   *
* Recipients of these reviews are encouraged to reply to me directly *
* about perceived successes or failures of this experiment.          *
**********************************************************************

The following comments were provided by Francesca Palombini
<[email-masked]>. My comments are marked with [[Alexey:]]
below.

Francesca would have balloted *DISCUSS* on this document. She wrote:

Discuss:

Either I am missing something about "unirectional" and "bidirectional"
definition (which I read as can either be present in only one direction
request/response or both), or the following sections are wrong:

section 5.1 - assuming it is Content-Format, the option is bidirectional, it
can be set either in a request or response, for example a PUT request can
contain a Content-Format section 5.4 - Size1 and Size2 are bidirectional, and
can be used both in req and resp (see RFC7959 sect 4) Section 5.5 - ETag is
also Bidirectional (see RFC7252 section 5.10.6.1 and 5.10.6.2)

There are more options being defined and not specified in the document:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/core-parameters.xhtml#option-numbers
for example, Hop-Limit is one. There needs to be some discussion about those,
or some considerations on those being out of scope.

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

Francesca also provided the following comments:

Comment:

Section 4.2 CoAP type field: better to reference the IANA registry rather than
this section, as additional Code fields not defined in RFC7252 can be
registered. Section 7.4 : s/CONTENT/Content