Hi Ben, Just an update that we have submitted -21 and will upload -22 tomorrow (we submitted -22 twice but somehow it did not post; we will take the opportunity of waiting for one day to proofread the document and upload by the end of Friday for you to check if the revision handles your review, which is exceedingly valuable.
Richard On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 12:09 AM Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:25:12AM -0400, Y. Richard Yang wrote: > > Dear Elwyn, > > > > Thanks a lot for the review! Please see inline below. > > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 8:45 PM Elwyn Davies via Datatracker < > > nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > > > > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > > > Review result: Almost Ready > > > > > > 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-alto-incr-update-sse-20 > > > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > > > Review Date: 2020-03-09 > > > IETF LC End Date: 2020-03-06 > > > IESG Telechat date: 2020-03-12 > > > > > > Summary: > > > Almost ready. There are a few editorial issues, but I am not sure that > > > > > > Major issues: > > > I am unsure whether this mechanism is proof against loss of messages or > > > reordering of messags. Although there are state tags, it does not > appear > > > to > > > have any way to ensure that the state to which the updates will be > applied > > > in > > > the client are identical to the state that the updates were generated > > > from. If > > > I am wrong, it would be useful (IMO) to explain how the proposal avoids > > > getting > > > updates that don't apply to the state in the client. > > > > > > > Good comment! A short answer is that the design should have no > consistency > > problems. > > > > More details: > > > > (1) This design is based on http/1.x as transport, which provides a > single, > > reliable, in-order serialization of update messages: m1, m2, m3, ... > > The transport will guarantee that the messages will be delivered > lossless, > > in order. > > I did not remember getting the impression that it was required to use > HTTP/1.x transport with this specification, as I attempted to note in my > ballot, SSE is not HTTP/1.x-specific. If the intent is to only allow the > usage of HTTP/1.x with HTTP/2 (or HTTP/3) left to future work, I think that > (e.g.) the end of Section 3.3 needs to be more explicit about this. > > -Ben > -- Richard
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
