[Sorry for delay, was out for a while with a nasty flu, still catching up.]
At Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:56:17 -0800, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I find the document to be a bit short on normative references and some
> implementation details. Other than that the document looks fine. My
> specific questions and concern are as follows:
>
> 1) Please add a normative reference for HTTP, URI and RelaxNG on first
> use.
Added, will be in -11
> 2) Base64 needs a normative reference (including the section number, as
> there are 2 variants).
Added, will be in -11.
> 3) Section 2 says that all payloads use CMS. None of your examples show
> CMS. Can you please elaborate on how CMS is used.
The short version is already in the running text (section "Protocol
Specification" describes the CMS wrapping). Not shown in examples
because CMS is, um, rather verbose, and looks like dog food.
A full-blown exposition on use of CMS would look like RFC 6492 section
3.1 ("CMS Profile") and all of its subsections. Sure you want that?
Should we incorporate RFC 6492 3.1 by reference?
> 4) How can URI of the service be discovered?
Out of scope, but draft-ietf-sidr-oob-setup would be one way.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In 2.5: is the list of error reasons extensible?
Probably, given sufficient cause.
> Was Relax NG schema validated with a tool?
Yes, using trang and xmllint.
> In Section 5 you should reference the document, as IANA registrations cut
> & pasted to IANA website as separate files.
Would be happy to do so but does not appear to be on IANA website.
Chicken and egg problem? Leave for RFC Editor?
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
