Re: [alto] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20: (with COMMENT)

Hi Richard, The current revision sounds good to me. Sorry for the confusion. The "loose dependency" refers to what Mirja said ("... replace it by a few sentences that loosely described the scheme.") Maybe I misunderstood it. I thought Mirja suggested when the RFC7396 is updated in the future,

Re: [alto] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20: (with COMMENT)

- add Adam explicitly. Hi Jensen, Not sure by loose dependency, what you meant. The current approach is to revise the current document to include key features/notes of the algorithm. We will plan to use the change below: Old To avoid always sending complete data, a server needs mechanisms

Re: [alto] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20: (with COMMENT)

Hi Suresh, Mirja and Richard, To make the content consistent, I agree that we should not duplicate the formal specification. But I don't think it should be a loose dependency. Personally, I think we should strictly refer to RFC7396, even though it could be updated or obsoleted. If it is a loose

Re: [alto] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20

Ack, Alissa. Thanks! Richard On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:59 PM Alissa Cooper wrote: > Elwyn, thanks for your review. Richard, thanks for your response. I > entered a No Objection ballot. > > Alissa > > > On Mar 10, 2020, at 3:24 PM, Y. Richard Yang wrote: > > Dear Elwyn, > > Thank you so much

Re: [alto] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20: (with COMMENT)

Dear Adam, Suresh, Mirja, Thanks. The authors now agree and will replace the duplicated pseudo code with a reference. Adam: Thanks for catching the 193.51.100.0 IP address issue. We will replace both cases with a RFC 5737 address. Thanks again! Richard On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:46 PM Adam

[alto] Agenda requests

All: By now, I am sure everyone knows that the Vancouver meeting has been cancelled. The IESG will provide some clarity soon on when the various working groups can meet virtually. Just so we keep the momentum going, please send me and Jan your agenda requests; so far we have only received two

Re: [alto] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20: (with COMMENT)

Hi Richard, On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 9:12 PM, Y. Richard Yang wrote: > Thanks for the reviews, Alexey! > > Please see inline. > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:49 PM Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker > wrote: >> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for >>

Re: [alto] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20: (with COMMENT)

Hi Richard, The concern is that RFC7396 could be updated by another RFC or even obsoleted. Therefore duplicating any formal specification should be avoided and it’s actually a feature that people have to look up RFC7396. I recommend to remove the pseudo code and replace it by a few sentences