On 8/2/16 09:18, Susan Hares wrote:
This begins a 2 week WG LC on draft-i2rs-ephemeral-state-15.txt. This
draft received a “hum” of consensus at IETF 96, and we are now taking
the final text to a WG Last Call. Please send your comments on the
requirements to the WG list.
I think this is good. A general comment I have is that "ephemeral
state" is used in a number of places where I think "ephemeral
configuration" should be used. This may be a nit, but the device has
one state that is dictated by the various configuration types and the
operational state. This was raised in BA in the meetings as well.
My recommendation is to replace "ephemeral state" with "ephemeral
configuration". It's not a show-stopper the way it is, but I think the
latter is a bit clearer.
One nit I notice is a mixed use of Client/client Agent/agent. Per the
last round of RFCs, we are normalizing on client and agent (lowercase).
Section 7, bullet 2: This text reads strangely:
OLD TEXT:
The I2RS protocol MUST support the
ability to have data nodes MAY store I2RS client identity and not
the effective priority of the I2RS client at the time the data
node is stored.
PROPOSED NEW TEXT:
The I2RS protocol MUST support the ability to have data nodes store I2RS
client identity and not the effective priority of the I2RS client at the
time the data node is stored.
Section 8: I2RS is written "I2SR"
Section 8: This text is odd
OLD TEXT:
multiple operations in one or more messages handling can handle
errors within the set of operations in many ways.
I'm stumped. This doesn't read as a requirement per se. Yes, the I2RS
protocol can support multiple operations within one message or multiple
messages. Based on the fact that atomicity is not provided, an error in
one message will have no effect on other messages, even if they are
related. So maybe:
PROPOSED NEW TEXT:
multiple operations in one or more messages; though errors in one
message or operation will have no effect on other messages or commands
even if they are related
Section 9:
OLD TEXT:
requirements SHOULD be understood to be expanded to to include
NEW TEXT:
requirements SHOULD be understood to be expanded to include
Joe
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
