comparison satp-core-review.txt @ 21:28fb3e434f00

more
author Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
date Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:35:04 +0100
parents 7cf0c76e9749
children f2743a0a4eb7
comparison
equal deleted inserted replaced
20:7cf0c76e9749 21:28fb3e434f00
94 remove ' (client)' and ' (sender)' 94 remove ' (client)' and ' (sender)'
95 95
96 8., 9., 10. 96 8., 9., 10.
97 97
98 remove and/or replace 'client', 'server' and 'receiver' so that all 98 remove and/or replace 'client', 'server' and 'receiver' so that all
99 and only 'sender gateway' and 'recipient gateway' are used 99 and only 'sender gateway' and 'recipient gateway' are used.
100 100
101 8.3. and others
102
103 Starting here there are many sentences of the form
104
105 "This message is sent from ... to the ... Endpoint at ... ."
106
107 The typography implies that these are formal properties of SATP, but
108 as far as I can see there is no definition of 'endpoint' or how the
109 many different ... Endpoints are to be identified between the two
110 gateways. Is this information meant to be included in the 'transfer
111 context' as defined in 5.3.6?
101 112
102 *Nits* 113 *Nits*
103 114
104 3. 115 3.
105 116
109 5.3.15 120 5.3.15
110 'immobile' => 'immobilize' [twice] 121 'immobile' => 'immobilize' [twice]
111 122
112 'uses Hashed Time-lock' => 'use Hashed Time-lock' 123 'uses Hashed Time-lock' => 'use Hashed Time-lock'
113 124
125 8.1., 8.2., 8.6., 9.1, 10., 11.3., 11.4.
126
127 must => MUST [throughout]
128
129 8.4., 8.6. and 9 others
130
131 The example JSON ends with a comma, which is strictly speaking not
132 allowed, and may cause errors in some tools (e.g. jq). It would be
133 best to remove them.
134
135 11.3.
136
137 The example JSON is missing a comma after
138 "urn:ietf:params:satp:core:msgtype:transfer-proposal-msg"
139
140 12.
141
142 'such a' => 'such as'
143
114 15.1 144 15.1
115 145
116 RFC 8446 is obsolete, should refer to 9846. 146 RFC 8446 is obsolete, should refer to 9846.
117 147
118 148