Hi Kai, Sorry for the delay – the changes address my DISCUSS, and I have just updated the ballot to reflect that.
Thanks, Francesca From: kai...@scu.edu.cn <kai...@scu.edu.cn> Date: Tuesday, 21 November 2023 at 15:03 To: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palomb...@ericsson.com> Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>, alto-cha...@ietf.org <alto-cha...@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-alto-new-transp...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-alto-new-transp...@ietf.org>, alto@ietf.org <alto@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Re: [alto] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-17: (with DISCUSS) Hi Francesca, We have uploaded a new revision (-18) of the document draft-ietf-alto-new-transport (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/). Could you please take a look and see if the proposed changes address your DISCUSS points? Thanks! Best, Kai > -----Original Messages----- > From: kai...@scu.edu.cn > Send time:Thursday, 11/09/2023 13:25:56 > To: "Francesca Palombini" <francesca.palomb...@ericsson.com> > Cc: "The IESG" <i...@ietf.org>, alto-cha...@ietf.org, > draft-ietf-alto-new-transp...@ietf.org, alto@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [alto] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on > draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-17: (with DISCUSS) > > Hi Francesca, > > Thanks for the review. Please see our responses to the "other points" below. > > Best, > Kai > > > > -----Original Messages----- > > From: "Francesca Palombini via Datatracker" <nore...@ietf.org> > > Send time:Wednesday, 10/25/2023 14:29:19 > > To: "The IESG" <i...@ietf.org> > > Cc: alto-cha...@ietf.org, draft-ietf-alto-new-transp...@ietf.org, > > alto@ietf.org > > Subject: [alto] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on > > draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-17: (with DISCUSS) > > > > Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-17: Discuss > > > > 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Thank you for the work on this document. > > > > Many thanks to Spencer Dawkins for his ART ART reviews (most recent being > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/LibZiksz5-nO-g8IyOJrrtczj94/), > > and to > > Martin Thomson for his HTTPDir reviews (most recent being > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/vz87ZLJVlbuVnSacxli8hvl-LTU/). > > Spencer and Martin's expertise has helped improve the document > > considerably, so > > thanks to them, and to the authors for considering their reviews. > > > > I have a couple of points I'd like to DISCUSS. > > > > First of all, I have looked for media type reviews in the media-types > > mailing > > list, and could not find the registration request posted. As specified by > > RFC6838, it is strongly encouraged to post the media type registration to > > the > > media-types mailing list for review (see > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/1hOBaaTVCfl-M3uHmu2a7Q5Ogzk/ > > for an example of a registration review). If I missed it, my apologies. If > > not, > > please post to the media-types mailing list, and I will remove the discuss > > with > > no objections raised in a week or so. Please make sure to copy-paste the > > full > > sections 10.1 and 10.2 (not just a pointer to them) in your mail to > > media-types. > > > > Talking about the media types, I was surprised to see that both media types > > are > > used with two different formats. For example, application/alto-tips+json is > > used both with a JSON object of type AddTIPSResponse (section 6.2) and a > > JSON > > object of type UpdatesGraphSummary (section 7.4.2). I asked Murray to take a > > look (as the expert on media types), so I will look out for his ballot > > there. > > [KAI] Thanks for pointing this out. We change the media type of the response > in > section 7.4.2 to "application/merge-patch+json", updating the base object of > type > AddTIPSResponse. > > > > > In several places (see below for what I identified as problematic SHOULDs) > > the > > document lacks text about why these are SHOULD and not MUST or MAY. I agree > > with John Klensin, who formulated it very clearly: If SHOULD is used, then > > it > > must be accompanied by at least one of: (1) A general description of the > > character of the exceptions and/or in what areas exceptions are likely to > > arise. Examples are fine but, except in plausible and rare cases, not > > enumerated lists. (2) A statement about what should be done, or what the > > considerations are, if the "SHOULD" requirement is not met. (3) A statement > > about why it is not a MUST. I believe some context around these would be > > enough > > to solve my concern, and give the reader enough context to make an informed > > decision. If you believe the context is there, and I just missed it, please > > do > > let me know. > > > > Francesca > > > > Section 6.2: > > > > > A server SHOULD NOT use properties that are not included in the request > > > body > > to determine the URI of a TIPS view, such as cookies or the client's IP > > address. > > [KAI] The context of the sentence is not clear. We change the paragraph to the > following: > > A server MUST NOT use a URI for different TIPS views, either for > different resources or different request bodies to the same > resource. URI generation is implementation specific, for example, > one may compute a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID, [RFC4122]) > or a hash value based on the request, and append it to a base URL. > For performance considerations, it is NOT RECOMMENDED to use > properties that are not included in the request body to determine > the URI of a TIPS view, such as cookies or the client's IP > address, which may result in duplicated TIPS views in cases such > as mobile clients. However, this is not mandatory as a server may > intentionally use client information to compute the TIPS view URI > to provide service isolation between clients. > > > > > > If the TIPS request does not have a "resource-id" field, the error code of > > the error message MUST be E_MISSING_FIELD and the "field" field SHOULD be > > "resource-id". > > > > > The "field" field SHOULD be the full path of the "resource-id" field, and > > > the > > "value" field SHOULD be the invalid resource-id. > > [KAI] The SHOULD here are changed to MUST, with the condition "if present" as > "field" and "value" attributes are optional according to RFC 7285. > > > > > Section 7.2: > > > > > Hence, the server processing logic SHOULD be: > > > > [KAI] Changed to MUST. > > > Section 8.5: > > > > > If the new value does not, whether there is an update depends on whether > > > the > > previous value satisfies the test. If it did not, the updates graph SHOULD > > NOT > > have an update. > > > > [KAI] This section is repeating Section 9.3 of RFC 8895 and is now removed > from > this document. > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > alto mailing list > > alto@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
