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-forces-model-extension-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2014-08-08
IETF LC End Date: 2014-09-09
Summary: Nearly ready for publication as a proposed standard, but there are
some issues that should be considered first, and some editorial issues that
might also be worth consideration.
Note 1: I am not an expert in xml schema specifications. I hope assume others
have reviewed the schema, and mechanically verified them.
Note 2: I notice that the Adrian's AD review commented about the lack of
working group review, while the shepherd writeup comments that the working
group had a solid consensus on this draft. On the surface, those comments seem
to conflict. (I don't expect the author to take any action on this)
Major issues:
-- IDNits points out that this draft may need the pre-RFC5378 boilerplate, due
to content from RFC 5812. It does appear to include substantial amounts of XML
schema from 5812. While the publication date of 5812 post-dates RFC5378, there
were many revisions of the draft form that pre-date 5378 by some time. So
unless the author has gotten permission from all 5812 authors (and I note that
author list changed several times prior to publication), this draft and any
resulting RFC may well need the boilerplate.
Minor issues:
-- section 2.3, 3rd paragraph:
The 2119 language in this paragraph seems more like description of procedures.
You really only need 2119 language when you want to constrain some choice an
implementor might make. Also, in the two cases of "MUST be ignored", please
consider using active voice? (That is, who or what must ignore it?)
-- section 2.4, 2nd paragraph:
This also seems like a description of general procedures that doesn't really
need 2119 language.
-- section 2.4, bulleted paragraph:
Is this similar to saying that eventBecomesEqualTo effectively becomes an
eventChanged after achieving the target value? Once the value changes from the
target by V or more, does it reset the becomesEqualTo trigger?
-- 2.6, 2nd paragraph: "... derivedFrom will always select the latest version."
What if a newer version of the parent is created after the child is defined?
Can it cause backwards compatibility issues if the parent class changes out
from under the child?
-- section 6:
The assertion that the changes in this draft have no effect on security is a
bit of a red flag. This draft introduces new kinds of properties and events
that can be expressed, as well as a change to the inheritance model. Are you
sure none of those have a security impact? It would at least be good to
mention, for each of these changes, why you think it does not affect the prior
model security considerations.
Nits/editorial comments:
-- Abstract, 2nd paragraph:
Please expand LFP on first use.
s/ "... update RFC5812 ..." / "... updates RFC5812 ..."
-- section 1, first paragraph:
Please expand "FEs" on first use . (I know you did in the abstract, but the
body and abstract should each be able to stand alone.)
-- section 1, 2nd paragraph, last sentence
Sentence appears to be missing one or more commas.
-- section 2.1, 2nd paragraph: " ... can be seen in the OpenFlow switch 1.1 ..."
I assume you mean the OpenFlow1.1 specification, not any particular switch.
-- 2.1, paragraph 5:
The proximity of the description of figure 2 and the beginning of figure 1 may
be confusing. I suggest moving figure 1 to immediately after it's description
in the first paragraph of the section.
-- section 2.2, 2nd paragraph: "... allows optional to add ..."
I suggest "allows the optional addition" or "allows the option to add"
-- section 2.2, paragraph after Figure 4: "Additionally this document appends
to the declaration of the AtomicType from Figure 5 to Figure 6 to allow default
values to Atomic datatypes."
Sentence is difficult to parse.
-- section 2.3, 1st paragraph: "
2nd sentence is awkward. It seems to agree with previous sentence in spite of
"however". Also, what is antecedent of it's?
-- section 2.3, 2nd paragraph, first sentence: " With this extension is it
allowed to define..."
I suggest "This extension allows the definition ..."
-- section 2.4, first paragraph:" ... when the value is exactly ..."
s / is / becomes
-- section 2.4, last paragraph:
I can't parse "take into account to use". Do you mean "consider using..."?
-- section 2.5, 1st paragarph:
By "current model", do you mean prior to this update? Keep in mind that once
this is published, the updated version will be the current one. Also,
"sent/received" should be "sent and received" or "sent or received".
-- 2.5, 2nd paragraph:
s / defines / specifies
Also, what does it mean to "target LFB properties". Do you mean "refer to..."?
-- Figure 13, caption:
Missing "of" after "disallowing". Or consider "New XML to disallow..."
-- 2.6, 1st paragraph:
should "... LFB class may inherit." be "LPB class inherits."?
" ... different versions of an LFB class exists."
s / exists / exist
Also, should that be different versions of the _parent_ class?
-- 2.7, 2nd paragraph:
Consider active voice. e.g., "This document introduces..."