I just read through the diff of -24. I'm assuming that my feedback was lost somewhere.
On 14 September 2013 09:41, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > Martin, > > Thanks for the detailed review. I'll let the authors respond to these if they > have further questions or clarifications to ask. > > - Jouni > > > > On Sep 14, 2013, at 3:13 AM, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >> you may receive. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide-19 >> Reviewer: Martin Thomson >> Review Date: 2013-09-13 >> IETF LC End Date: unknown, early review >> IESG Telechat date: (if known) >> >> Summary: This document is ready, with some minor issues and nits. >> >> Minor issues: >> I would find it a lot easier to read this document if it did as the >> goals state (the first objective from the introduction) and clarify >> what the extensibility rules in Diameter say with respect to each of >> the described extensions. It's not easy to glean this information >> from RFC 6733, which makes reviewing this a little tricky. >> >> For instance, Section 4.1 doesn't really say what the expectations are >> with respect to implementations that receive unknown or unsupported >> commands. I think that I could guess, but I'd rather not. (I just >> read the relevant parts of 6733, and it turns out that my guess was >> wrong.) >> >> The same applies to Section 4.2, presumably through applying the same >> principles. The question here is: what would be the expected behavior >> if a node was operating on the new application definition and that >> node received a deleted command? (The old implementation presumably >> has no problem with the absence of the command if it's being removed.) >> >> The same applies to Section 5. >> >> Sections 4.4.2 and particularly 5.6 lead me to infer that the >> extensibility for enumerated types is fundamentally broken, so maybe >> those properties need to be expanded upon a little here too. >> >> The placement of the guidance in Section 5.6 seems fairly important >> for Section 4, lest that important information be lost to someone just >> looking to tweak a command. >> >> Section 4.3.1, perhaps add to the M-bit criteria: Would the presence >> or value of the AVP alter the interpretation of the command (or any >> other AVP) in any way? (nit: s/AVPs/AVP on second bullet here.) >> >> I didn't find the list in Section 6 particularly compelling. It >> seemed a little like motherhood statements. The description of what >> it was this was talking about: good; the description of how these >> "often" (always?) manifest is also useful. I wonder though whether >> it's safe to generalize when you only see generic protocols extensions >> as optional AVPs. Perhaps you need to refocus on exactly that, and >> leave the other forms of extension to speculation. >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> The last paragraph of Section 3 is confusing to me. Firstly, the >> subject of the reminder is missing from the first sentence. I think >> that the intent of that sentence is to say that extending by adding >> applications or commands is to be avoided, but then subsequent >> sentences make it clear that doing so is easy. The last sentence >> seems to be talking about something else entirely, which is the value >> that IANA registries provide. I am going to have to suggest that this >> be reworded entirely. >> >> In Section 4.1, I'd like to see the note turned into real text. The >> size and complexity of an application seems to be a fairly significant >> factor in determining whether a new application imports commands, or >> whether separate applications are defined. >> >> I read the first bullet in Section 4.3.2 as a sentence, several times, >> before realizing that it's a title. Please reconsider the formatting >> of this list. At a very minimum, remove the period. >> >> --Martin >> >> p.s., I'm on vacation starting approximately ...now, since I'm out of >> time for this review... so apologies for any slow responses to the >> review. > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
