Subject: [core] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-senml-versions-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 02:59:37 -0700

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-core-senml-versions-03: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-senml-versions/

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

Hi,

Thanks for the this document.   Just a couple of minor comments.

It looked like the equation in section 2 was mucked up in the text version of
the doc.  Presumably this will get fixed during the editing process:

I.e.,
              __ 52                       fc
   version = \         present(fc)&nbsp;⋅&nbsp;2
             /__ fc = 0

   Quantitatively, the expert could for instance steer the allocation to
   not allocate more than 10 % of the remaining set per year.

Rather than setting this is a limit, I would suggest that it is better to set
this as a target.  E.g., if it turns out that there is a good justification for
an extension, it would be a shame if it had to be delayed by a year merely to
fit into a somewhat arbitrary rate limiting scheme.

Besides, if you end up with 53 different optional extensions, then I suspect
that the bigger problem will be that there are too many variants of what is
supported by different implementations which will reduce interop, and you'll
probably want to end up with batches of extensions that are expected to be
supported together, i.e., some sort of hybrid between completely independent
extensions and a strict linear version scheme.

Rob

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:48:16 +0200

On 2021-06-02, at 11:59, Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> […]

Indeed, this is an xml2rfc bug:

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/xml2rfc/ticket/641

(I will manually fix this before submitting the next version, if I remember to do that…  The RFC editor will, at the latest.)

> fit into a somewhat arbitrary rate limiting scheme.

That actually was the intention of the weasel words “could”, “for instance”, “steer … to”.

I further clarified:
to not allocate ➔ to a target of not allocating

> extensions and a strict linear version scheme.

I agree, and that’s certainly a reason why we thought “49 bits is enough for everyone”.  Added a paragraph based on your text at the end of Section 2.1.

Changes now in https://github.com/core-wg/senml-versions/commit/989d37c

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 11:20:56 +0000

LGTM.

Thanks,
Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
> Sent: 03 June 2021 09:48
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; The IESG <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; draft-ietf-
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [core] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-senml-
> versions-03: (with COMMENT)
> 
> (I will manually fix this before submitting the next version, if I remember to
> do that…  The RFC editor will, at the latest.)
> 
> I agree, and that’s certainly a reason why we thought “49 bits is enough for
> everyone”.  Added a paragraph based on your text at the end of Section 2.1.
>