Dear Jensen, Thanks a lot for the good review. Please see below.
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Jensen Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > Document: draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-07 > Reviewer: Jensen Zhang > > Summary: I have reviewed the latest update of this document. Overall, it > is well-written. I think It is almost ready to be last called once the > following points are addressed. > > Comments: > > Section 3., paragraph 0: > > 3. Terms > > This section is still empty. I feel the usage of some frequently > appeared concepts (e.g. "update stream", "update stream resource", > "update stream message", "update stream instance", etc.) is confusing > and inconsistent. Authors can consider to define them precisely in > this section. > > Indeed it is just a placeholder and we will add shortly. > > Section 5., paragraph 2: > > > The building block of the update mechanism defined in this document > > is update stream resources (defined in Section 7), where each update > > stream resource (or update stream for short) is a POST-mode service > > Here introduced "update stream" as a new concept, but the definition > may be inconsistent with the usage below. > > Can you please elaborate more on the inconsistency? > Section 6., paragraph 1: > > > We now define the details of ALTO incremental update. Specifically, > > an update stream consists of a stream of update events (Section 6.2) > > update stream -> update stream message? Because in Section 5, > update stream is short for update stream resource. > > > Good catch. We will fix. > Section 6.1., paragraph 1: > > > Update and control events have the same basic structure. The data > > field is a JSON object, and the event field contains the media type > > of the data field, and an optional client id. Update events use the > > client id to identify the ALTO resource to which the update message > > applies. Client ids MUST follow the rules for ALTO ResourceIds (see > > {10.2} of [RFC7285]. Client ids MUST be unique within an update > > stream, but need not be globally unique. For example, if a client > > The same problem as above. I think "update stream" indicates > "update stream message" here. > > > Yep. Another good catch. > Section 6.1., paragraph 7: > > > Note that an update stream does not use the SSE "id" field. > > The same problem as above. > > OK. Will fix. Overall, it looks that the main issue is that the short phrase "update stream" can mean multiple things, including update stream message, and update stream instance. We will fix them soon in the next version. Thanks again! Richard > > Section 6.3., paragraph 3: > > > The "control-uri" field is the URI of the stream control resource for > > this update stream (see Section 8). The ALTO server MUST send a > > control event with that URI as the first event in an update stream. > > The same problem as above. > > > Section 7., paragraph 2: > > > When a server creates a new update stream, it also creates a new > > stream control service for that update stream. A client uses the > > I think the two "update stream"s here mean "update stream instance"s. > > > Section 7., paragraph 3: > > > stream control service to remove resources from the update stream > > instance, or to request updates for additional resources. A client > > cannot obtain the stream control service through the IRD. Instead, > > the first event that the server sends to the client has the URI for > > the associated control service (see Section 6.3. > > Missing right parenthesis. > > > Section 7.3., paragraph 1: > > > An ALTO client specifies the parameters for the new update stream by > > update stream -> update stream instance. > > > Best, > Jensen > -- -- ===================================== | Y. Richard Yang <[email protected]> | | Professor of Computer Science | | http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/ | =====================================
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
