Per Wikipedia:
"Multilateration is a technique for determining a stationary or moving
"vehicle's" position based on measurement of the times of arrival (TOAs)
of virtually any type (physical phenomenon) of energy wave having a
known waveform and propagation speed when traveling either from
(navigation) or to (surveillance) multiple system stations."
1st modern use was WW1 audio multilateration of artillery. Anyway that
is what I was once told...
I guess with this audience, that should be defined...
I will go over your comments and get back to you.
Bob
On 5/10/22 12:25, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-drip-rid-24
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2022-05-10
IETF LC End Date: 2022-05-11
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary:
Ready with nits. I can't speak for the robustness of the security choices but
the document is well written apart from a couple of pieces of deep jargon that
may need explanation for more naive readers (notably multilateration -
definitely a new one on me!)
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits/editorial comments:
Abstract/s1: The term 'self-asserting IPv6 address' is defined in Section 3
of the DRIP architecture. AFAICS 'self-asserting' is novel terminology, at
least in this context, and I think it would be good to point to the
architecture in the Abstract and to make it a little clearer that the term
self-asserting (IPv6 address) is defined in the architecture - I missed that on
first reading - as well as the idea of HHITs.
s1, para 3: s/are updated, these/are updated, but these/
s3.2: Query: Is there are good reason for leaving the HIT/HHIT Suite ID value
4 unused?
s3.2, s3.4.2, s8.2 and s8.4: After the definition of the EdDSA/cSHAKE128 value
'(RECOMMENDED)' is appended. What or who is this recommendation aimed at?
The users of the specification or IANA in relation to TBD3? The registry
doesn't seem to have scope for recording this recommendation. If it is aimed
at users, I think there should be words to this effect in s3.2 and it is
probably not relevant in s3.4.2.
s3.4.1.1 and s8.4: Similar question regarding '(RECOMMENDED)'.
s3.4, para 2: s/As such the following updates HIP parameters./The subsections
of this section document the required updates of HIP parameters./
s3.5.2.1, s3.5.3 and s3.5.4: I suggest adding a reference to the HITv2 archive
where the prefix 2001:20::'28 is allocated (3 places).
s4, para 2: 'The 2022 forthcoming ...' is not future proof. Suggest adding an
RFC editor note to remove '2022 forthcoming' during editing.
s5, para 1: s/does not intent/does not intend/
s5: The examples should be using the 'example' top level domain.
s5, para 7: The phrase 'If we assume a prefix of 2001:30::/28,' is confusing.
This prefix is the one the document is asking IANA to allocate for the HHITs so
I suggest 'Using the allocated prefix for HHITs TBD6 [suggested value
2001:30::/28] (See Section 3.1)'.
s8.1, last item: 'False?': A decision needs to be taken on what value should
be here.
s9.1, para 4: Is 'multilateration' sufficiently well understood to be used
without explanation?
App A, para 1: s/EU/The EU/ (2 places).
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
